SECY OF STATE Vs. MMURUGESA MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first civil revision petition raises a question in regard to the scope and effect of Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P.C. The suit was filed by the plaintiff in the Munsif's Court for a declaration that he was a duly elected member of the Chingleput District Board. He impleaded as defendants: (1) the District Board of Chingleput and (2) the President of that Board. He prayed not only for a declaration as stated above but also for the issue of a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to recognize him as a duly elected member of the District Board. The Government applied to the lower Court for being added as a party. That application was refused by the District Munsif and in this civil revision petition, his order is attacked by the Government.

(2.) The allegations in the plaint are shortly summarised thus by the learned District Munsif: On 30 March 1928 the President, Taluk Board, Chingleput, convened a special meeting of the Taluk Board for the election of a member to the District Board. When the meeting commenced, there were 24 members present besides the president. A motion for adjournment was supported and opposed equally and on the casting vote of the president, the motion for adjournment was carried. The president and the 12 members who voted for the adjournment went away. The 12 members who opposed the motion thought that the adjournment was illegal and invalid and convened a meeting and elected one of their own number as chairman and in such meeting, the plaintiff was declared elected as a member of the District Board. It is alleged that the adjournment was illegal because out of the 12 members who voted for the adjournment two members had ceased to be so, long before the date and they had no right to take part in the meeting at all and as such their votes were improperly received. The plaintiff learns that the notification of the election in the Gazette has been withheld and a fresh meeting would be convened for the purpose. Ha asserts that he had been elected, wants a declaration accordingly and an injunction directing the defendants, the District Board, Chingleput and its President to recognize him as such and to transact all business of the District Board in co-operation with and after due notice to him.

(3.) In the plaint there are allegations impeaching the conduct of the President of the Taluk Board and questioning the legality of the notification in the Gazette published by the Government. But there is not a single allegation made either against defendant 1 or 2. Why did the plaintiff then implead as defendants, those against whom he had no grievance and omit to join the parties, whose action, he alleges, prejudiced his right? This may, at first sight appear surprising; but the truth seems to be, that the President of the District Board informed the Government that in his view the plaintiff's election was valid. This apparently led the plaintiff to believe that if he adopted this method he would easily succeed in the suit. The application of the Government was opposed both by the plaintiff and the defendants. The question is, is it proper, in the circumstances, to make the Government party?