AJAZ HOSSAIN JAFRI Vs. ALTAF HOSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against an order made under Order 22, Rule 10, Civil P.C. by the District Judge of the 24-Perganas. It arises out of an application made by the appellant for continuing an appeal which has been preferred by the respondent pending in the Court of the District Judge on the allegation that the interest of the respondent in the appeal had devolved on the appellant. The District Judge rejected the application and hence this appeal.

(2.) The facts are very simple. There is a well-known foundation of Mohamed Mohsin of the Hooghly Imambara. There is a committee appointed under the Religious Endowment Act 20 of 1863 for the management of the endowment. The committee it appears from time to time appoints a manager or mutwali for the performance of the duties in connexion with the foundation. In this case the President of the managing committee advertized in the news papers, a-copy of which has been exhibited in this case Ex. 7, inviting applicants for the post of Mutwali of the Hooghly Imambara. It appears that the respondent answered to the advertisement and an agreement was entered into between the members of the committee and the respondent Syed Altaf Hossain under which he was appointed Mutwali for a period of three years with option to the managing committee to continue the appointment if they so chose. There was a term in the agreement that the Mutwali was liable to dismissal by the Committee without assigning any reason by simply giving him three months notice. What happened was that respondent Altaf Hossain was appointed mutwali or manager from the 1 March 1923. Towards the end of the term this gentleman expressed a desire that the period of his appointment should be extended, and after some correspondence as the Judge notes, the committee informed him on 21 January 1926 that he would be reappointed as mutwali for a further period of three years with effect from the 1 March 1926. Subsequently however on the 16 March the committee addressed a letter to this gentleman in the following terms: We have the honour to inform you that in accordance with the terms of the agreement approved by you on 17 January 1926 on the basis of which you took charge of the office of mutwali (or manager) of the Hoogly Imambara on the morning of the 1 March 1926, we dispense with your services on and from 1 July, 1926 under Clause 5 of the aforesaid agreement and that you are requested to make over charge of the office of mutwali (or manager) to the new mutwali (or manager) to be appointed by the committee hereafter or in his absence to the Dewan and Seristadar of the Imambara or in his absence to the Peshkar.

(3.) It is said that the appellant before us Syed Ajaz Hossain Jafri was subsequently appointed mutwali, by the committee. On such appointment the appellant applied to the District Judge for an order under Order 22, Rule 10, Civil P.C. The suit out of which the appeal is pending before the District Judge was one for setting aside a lease created in favour of the defendant in that suit by the previous mutwali. The succeeding mutwali named Riezuddin brought the suit originally. He was the mutwali then for a term of three years and after his term expired one Ali Kazmaini was appointed in his place and he was substituted as plaintiff in the suit, and after his term expired the present respondent before us Altaf Hossain was substituted in his place. Now after what has happened the present appellant applies to be substituted in the appeal pending before the District Judge in place of the respondent. The appeal it may be mentioned is Title Appeal No. 386 of 1925.