IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 7TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 23185 of 2010(O) -------------------------- OP.477/2010 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA, THYCAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY THE KERALA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA,THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 3. THE PRESIDENT, THE KERALA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 4. THE TREASURER, THE KERALA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA, THYCAUD, THIRUVANATHAPURAM DIST. 5. K.KESAVAN NAIR, SECRETARY, THE KERALA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 6. M.JANARDHANAN PILLAI, TREASURER, THE KERALA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA, THYCUAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.J.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. R.JOSEPH,S/O K.RAGHAVAN PANCHAVADI, CHEMMANUVILA, KURUTHANCODE.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.-695008 2. S.CHANDASEKHARAN NAIR,S/O.N.KUNJUKRISHNA PILLAI, MACHU NIVAS, DHARUVACHAPURM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.-695035 3. A.THANKARAJAN, S/O D.ALEXANDER, LISSY BHAVAN, NEAR KURISSADIMUKKU, KARIAVATTAM.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.-695003 4. P.RAJENDRAN, S/O. K.PADMANABHAN, SARATHI, K.P.XI/575, PIPE LINE ROAD, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.-695025 WP(C).No. 23185 of 2010 5. D.SOMASEKHARAN NAIR, S/O.BALAN PILLAI,'A THIRA', ENIKKARA, KARAKULAM (VIA), PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.-695025 6. D.SREEKUMARAN, S/O.DIVAKARAN, MUNDACKALVILA VEEDU, AMACHAL.P.O.,KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.-695022 7. T.U.PREMKUMAR, S/O K.UMAMAHESWARAN, XXIV, THOPPIL NAGAR, KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.-695001 8. G.DROUPADI, D/O. A.KRISHNAN, "SHIVAS", VENJARAMOODU.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.-695032 9. R.MADHAVI AMMA, D/O P.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, VILAYKKATTUKONAM,KOLIYACODE.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.-695038 10. D.OMANA AMMA, D/O GOVINDAN NAIR,MANJU NIVAS, VATTA VILA, THIRUMALA.P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.-695055 11. C.SANTHAMMA, D/O. SARASAKMMA, "SARATHI", K.P. XI/575, PIPE LANE ROAD, PEROORKADA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.-695025 12. D.RAJALEKSHMY AMMA, D/O N.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, MADHAVA VILASAM, PANGAPPARA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.-695018 13. S.SUBHAGA, D/O V.KUNJUKRISHNAN, PUTHENVILA VEEDU, KIZHAKKUMKARA, KULATHOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.-695017 14. B.LALITHAMMA, D/O CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, "VISAKHAM", KARNKONI, KARAKKULAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.-695021 15. INDIRAMMA, D/O DEVAKI AMMA, AVATHAMCODE, MELEPUTHENVEEDU, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.-695020 16. HARIDAS.G., S/O GOPALAN ACHARI, "GEETHA BHAVAN", PAPPAD, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.-695030 17. KRISHNA NAIR.S. S/O SANKARA PILLAI, AVATHAMCODE, MELEPUTHENVEEDU, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.-695030 18. PROF. N.MADHAVAN KUTTYNAIR, S/O. NEELAKANTA PILLAI, "SREE KARTHIKA", T.C.ZLI/1937, MANACAUDE.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.-695003 WP(C).No. 23185 of 2010 19. K.N.CHANDRASEKHARA KURUP, S/O. M.R.NARAYANA PILLAI, "CHANDRA PRABHA" EVRA-361, THYCAUDE.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.695002 20. B.GAYATHRI, D/O. SUGATHAN, GEETHA BHAVAN MANGALAKKAL, KATTAKKADA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.-695022 21. S.PERUMAL PILLAI, S/O. M.SUBRAMANIA PILLAI, "LAKSHMI", H.NO"17, RAGALAKSHMI AGAR, PATTAM PALACE.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.-695002 22. V.PUSHPA BALAN, S/O. T.VELAYUDHAN ACHARI KAPPUKATTU VEEDU, VIZHIJAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.-695031 23. D.VARGHESE, S/O. M.DEVASAHAYAM, "RESHMI" VAZHUTHOORKONAM, VILAVOORKAL, MALAYINKIAL.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.-695113 24. N.CHITRA, D/O. J.JAGADEESAN NAIR, "JAGAD BHAVAN,", KONATHUKULANGARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.-695101 25. A.POONAYAN, S/O. R.APPAVUNADAR, "SUBHAVAN", THENKAVILA, KIZHULKOLLA, VATTAVILA.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.-695012 26. R.RAJENDRAN, S/O. K.RAMAKRISHNAN NADAR, "ANJU BHAVAN", KUNTHANIVIDAKETHATTE,THATHUPARA, MARANALLOR, VELIYAMCODE.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.-695011 27. S.GOPAKUMAR, S/O SOMASEKHARAN NAIR, "PRIYA VIHAR", ENIKKARA, KARAKULAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.-695032 28. G.S. PRASANTH, "RANI HOUSE", MOONAMMOODU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-13.- 29. J.JOSE, MAVUVILA VEEDU, MMRA 14, MOONNAMMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-13. 30. C.SWARNAMMA, PLAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MOONAMMODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-13. 31. S.RAJENDRA KUMAR, NADUVIL PUTHEN VEEDU, THUDAYALKODE, ENIKKARA, KARAKONAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695564. 32. K.JANANDHANAN NAIR, KANNETTIL VEEDU, T.C. IX/1663, PULLEKKONAM LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM.P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.-695110 WP(C).No. 23185 of 2010 33. V.S. SURESH BABU, MULLUVILA VEEDU, WEST OF DIAT, ATTINGAL,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695112 34. DR. S.LEELA KUMARI AMMA, SELECTION GRDE LECTURER A.S.N COLLEGE, KOLLAM.-691016 35. B.RAJESH, "SWATHI, T.C. 64/246, KAIMANAM, PANNAMCODE.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.-695032 36. K.G.REMADEVI, NAVABHARATH HINDI COLLEGE, VELLAYAMBALAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-10.- 37. S.SREEDHARAN NAIR, METTIL, "SREEVALSAM", EDAKKODE, NEMOMP.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.-695008 38. DR. B.VIJAYAMMA, "SABARMATHI", NEMOM.P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.-695008 39. K.KALESH SANKAR, "SANKARALAYAM" CHAVADI NADA, VENGANNOOR.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.-695031 40. V.SOMASEKHARAN NAIR, "SREE SOWMYAM", NILAMEL ROAD, NEYYATTINKARA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.-695032 41. V.P.BABURAJ, VAZHATHOPPIL VEEDU, PIRAVANNOOR.P.O, PIN-689696. 42. P.JAHAKUMARAN NAIR, "SOWPARNIKA", PALLIPURAM KANIYAPURAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.-695008 43. J.PONNAMMA, "SOWBHAGYA", MUKKOLA.P.O, MANNANTHALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.-695004 44. DR. S.HARIPRIYA, "TRIVENI", ALUVILA, BALARAMAPURAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.-695014 45. K.R.RAJINI AMMA, HOUSE NO.74, RAVI NAGAR, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.-695015 46. S.VIJAYA KUMAR, "LAKSHMI VILASAM", MUKKOLAKKAL, SREE VARAHAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.-695014 47. DR. P.LATHA, "AARATHI", FORESE OFFICE LANE, E-28, VAZHUTHAKKAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14. 48. P.S. KUMARI LATHA, SUMANGALAM, KUZHANADU.P.O, VATTAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.-695113 49. V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR, "SHYMALALAYAM", T.C.51/3078, ESTATE.P.O., PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.-695016 50. A.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, THOPPUVILAKATHU VEEDU, SARKARA, CHIRAYIMKIZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.-695018 WP(C).No. 23185 of 2010 51. T.SAJITH, "KRISHNA, T.C. 5/2415 (1) AMBALAMUKKU, KOWDIAR.P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.-695008 52. M.ANITHA KUMARI, MEERA BHAVAN, THYCAUDE.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14. 53. DR J.HARIKUMAR, "HARI BHAVAN", ETTUKUZHI (W), ENGINEERING COLLEGE.P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.-695111 54. S.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, "SAKETH", MUTTAPPALANM,PERUNGUZHI.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.-695123 55. R.BINI, "SOPANAM", MUTTAPPALAM PERUNGUZHI.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.-695246 56. S.N.PILLAI, "RAMALAYAM" WEST KADUNGLLORE.P.O, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683110. 57. K.THULASIDAS, S/O KUNJAN PANICKER, UJALA, THULAVILA ESTATE.P.O., PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.-645032 58. K.SEKHARA PILLAI, S/O. KUNJAN PILLAI, "SUBHADRALAYAM" MARANGAD.PO. UZHAMALAKKAL, ARYANAD, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.-695034 59. JOYKUTTY, S/O. D.JACOB, JESUMA NIVAS, G.S.S. N.R.A. 249, N.C.C. ROAD, PEROORKADA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.-695025 60. P.P.MURALEEDHARAN, S/O. K.P.K. PISHARADY T.C. 15/541, "KRIPA", VELLAYAMBALAM, SASTHAMANGALAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.-695024 ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR FOR R1 TO 22 SRI.R.T.PRADEEP FOR R 23 TO 26 SRI.V.VIJULAL FOR R 23 TO 26 SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM FOR R 27 TO 55 SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN FOR R 27 TO 55 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2010 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 24440 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23185 of 2010(O) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : ORIGINAL PETITION 477/2005 BEFORE THE 1st ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXHIBIT P2 : COMMON ORDER DTD. 01-08-2009 IN I.A. 1832 & 1833 OF 2009 OF THE 1st ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXHIBIT P3 : ORDER DTD 03.06.2010 IN 477/2005 AND CONNECTED I.AS OF THE 1st ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXHIBIT P4 : JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN M.F.A.NO.105/2010 DATD 17.06.2010 EXHIBIT P5 : REVIEW PETITION DTD 23.06.2010 EXHIBIT P6 : COMMON ORDER DTD 19-07-2010 IN I.A. 1884/10 & 1864/10 IN 477/2005 BEFORE THE 1st ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R18(a): LIST CONTAINING THE NAMES OF 36 PERSONS AND THEIR RELATION WITH THE PERSONS NOW AT THE HELM OF AFFAIRS OF THE SABHA EXHIBIT R18(b): COMPROMISE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXHIBIT R18(c): ORDER IN I.A.1832/2009 AND I.1.1833/2009 IN O.P.NO.477 OF 2005 EXHIBIT R18(d): DRAFT PUBLICATION APPROVED BY THE COURT BELOW EXHIBIT R18(e): JUDGMENT DATE D 31.03.10 IN W.P.C.No.7009/09 EXHIBIT R18(f): AFFIDAVIT AND THE INTERIM APPLICATION ACCOMPANYING THE SAME EXHIBIT R18(g): INTERIM APPLICATION ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT DTD 10.03.2006 EXHIBIT R18(h): LETTER NO.F.4.182/2004-KAE DTD 19.04.2005 OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ADDRESSED TO THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER, PAY & ACCOUNTS OFFICE, NEW DELHI EXHIBIT R18(i): OBJECTION TO the REVIEW PETITION FILED BY THE 18th RESPONDENT BEFORE THE COURT BELOW True Copy P.A to Judge THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P(C).Nos.23185 and 24440 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 29th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT These writ petitions arise from O.P.No.477 of 2005 of the court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Thiruvananthapuram. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as petitioners and respondents as in O.P.No.477 of 2005. 2. Respondent No.1 is the Kerala Hindi Prachar Sabha (for short, “the Sabha”). Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are the Secretary, President and treasurer, respectively of that Sabha. Respondent Nos.5 to 7 are the said office bearers but, impleaded in their personal capacity. Original petition was filed by 14 members of the Sabha under Sec.25 of the Travancore-Cochin Literacy, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”) seeking removal of the existing Governing Body of the Sabha, appointing a fresh Governing Body, framing a scheme for management of the Sabha, settlement of accounts and for other reliefs. Petitioners alleged in the original petition that there was mismanagement of affairs of the Sabha and that there was no conduct of elections as prescribed by the bye-law. Petitioner Nos.15 to 22, also members of the Sabha got W.P(C).Nos23185 and 24440 of 2010 : 2 : impleaded in the original petition. Respondent No.6 by then vacated his office in the Sabha. When the matter was pending before learned Additional District Judge there was a settlement of disputes between petitioners and respondent Nos.1, 5 and 7. As per that agreement a bye-law making certain modifications to the existing bye-law was drafted and it was agreed that elections be held to the various bodies of the Sabha. Accordingly they filed I.A.Nos.1832 and 1833 of 2009. I.A.No.1832 of 2009 was to appoint a receiver to conduct fresh election as per the new bye- law agreed to between petitioners and respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 7 and I.A.No.1833 of 2009 was to record settlement. The modified bye-law was appended to I.A.No.1833 of 2009. Learned Additional District Judge passed a common order dated 01-08-2009 on the said applications. The applications were allowed and Sri. K Viswanathan (a retired District Judge) was appointed as receiver to conduct the election. The modified bye- law was accepted and order was passed in terms of the compromise. While so, additional respondent Nos.8 to 37 sought their impleadment in the original petition vide I.A.No.2208 of 2009 and filed I.A.No.2379 of 2009 for review of common order dated 01-08-2009 on various grounds including that there was no W.P(C).Nos23185 and 24440 of 2010 : 3 : publication as required under Order 1 Rule 8(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Learned Additional District Judge reviewed the common order dated 01-08-2009 vide order dated 21-01-2010 (on I.A.No.2379 of 2009). Learned Additional District Judge observed that though no such publication (under Order 1 Rule 8(4) of the Code) is necessary when the matter is settled between the original parties to the proceeding settling a scheme and it is accepted, being a public matter it is within the power of court to direct publication about the settlement in appropriate cases and accordingly directed the parties to the original petition to effect necessary publication regarding the settlement vide I.A.Nos.1832 and 1833 of 2009. That publication was made. In the meantime additional respondent Nos.8 to 37 filed W.P.C.No.7009 of 2010 in this court challenging the common order dated 01-08-2009 on I.A.Nos.1832 and 1833 of 2009 and the order dated 21-01-2010 on I.A.No.2379 of 2009. Contention raised was that original petitioners and respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 7 had colluded among themselves and settled the matter in a manner detrimental to the interest of the Sabha and hence the compromise is not binding on the Sabha. This court disposed of the writ petition by judgment dated 31-03- W.P(C).Nos23185 and 24440 of 2010 : 4 : 2010. The common order dated 01-08-2009 on I.A.Nos.1832 and 1833 of 2009 and the order dated 21-01-2010 on I.A.No.2379 of 2009 were set aside and learned Additional District Judge was directed to reconsider the matter afresh as per law after hearing both sides. In the meantime there was I.A.No.2208 of 2010 to set aside the common order dated 01-08-2009 (that application was allowed on 25-01-2010). Additional respondent Nos.8 to 37 were impleaded in the original petition as per order dated 21-05-2010 on I.A.No.2240 of 2009 (additional respondent Nos.8 to 21 and 23 to 37 are the petitioners in W.P.C.No.24440 of 2010). 3. In the light of the judgment of this court in W.P.C.No.7009 of 2010 learned Additional District Judge took up I.A.Nos.1832 and 1833 of 2009 for consideration. Original petitioners filed I.A.No.1453 of 2010 suggesting certain changes to the agreed, modified bye-law produced along with I.A.No.1833 of 2010. Learned Additional District Judge heard counsel for all the parties and passed order on 03-06-2010 whereby certain clauses in the modified bye-law were further modified and accepted. The original petition was disposed of directing the receiver to conduct election as per the bye-law as further modified. The receiver was also directed to take charge of entire W.P(C).Nos23185 and 24440 of 2010 : 5 : affairs of the Sabha. Certain directions were also issued in the matter of conduct of election. Learned Additional District Judge stated in the order dated 03-06-2010 that modification made to the bye-law agreed to between petitioners and respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 7 and produced along with I.A.No.1833 of 2009 was assented to by counsel for all the parties before learned Additional District Judge. Applications were disposed of accordingly. Aggrieved by the order dated 03-06-2010 additional respondent Nos.8 to 21 and 23 to 37 filed M.F.A.No.104 of 2010 while respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 7 filed M.F.A.No.105 of 2010 in this court. In those appeals it was contended on behalf of appellants-respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 7 and additional respondent Nos.8 to 21 and 23 to 37 that themselves or counsel had not consented to the modification brought to the bye-law agreed to between original petitioners and respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 7 and appended to I.A.No.1833 of 2009. In the light of that contention, this court disposed of M.F.A.Nos.104 and 105 of 2010 observing that the proper remedy available to the appellants- respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 7 and additional respondent Nos.8 to 21 and 23 to 37 was to move the learned Additional District Judge by way of review as the order under challenge was stated W.P(C).Nos23185 and 24440 of 2010 : 6 : to be passed on consent of counsel. Accordingly respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 7 filed I.A.No.1884 of 2010 while additional respondent Nos.8 to 37 filed I.A.No.1864 of 2010. Those petitions were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge as per order dated 19-07-2010. That common order is under challenge in this writ petitions. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 7 filed W.P.C.No.23185 of 2010 while additional respondent Nos.8 to 21 and 23 to 37 have filed W.P.C.No.24440 of 2010. 4. Challenge is to the common order dated 19-07-2010 on I.A.Nos.1864 of 2010 and 1884 of 2010 whereby challenge to the common order dated 03-06-2010 has been rejected. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 7 mainly contended that learned Additional District Judge was not correct in effecting further modifications to the bye law agreed to between petitioners and themselves and produced along with I.A.No.1833 of 2009. Neither themselves nor their counsel had consented to any such modification as stated in the orders dated 03-06-2010 and 19-07- 2010. It was, at any rate illegal to make variations to the bye-law agreed to in writing by petitioners and respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 7 without parties agreeing to such further modifications in writing and signed by them as required under Rule 3 of Order W.P(C).Nos23185 and 24440 of 2010 : 7 : XXIII of the Code. Any such variation even if made by the parties in writing and signed, required notice to all persons interested in the Sabha as required under Rule 3B(2) of Order XXIII of the Code. The above mandatory requirements having not been complied, orders dated 03-06-2010 and 19-07-2010 cannot stand. There was no occasion or necessity to direct the Receiver to take charge of administration of the Sabha. Supplementing the above arguments learned counsel for respondent Nos.8 to 21 and 23 to 37 contend that even the order dated 01-08-2009 accepting the modified bye-law as agreed to between petitioners and respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 7 and allowing I.A.Nos.1832 and 1833 of 2009 cannot stand as the entire proceeding before the learned Additional District Judge is vitiated for want of publication under Order 1 Rule 8(2) of the Code. At any rate, without additional respondent Nos.8 to 21 and 23 to 37 signing the compromise vide I.A.Nos.1832 and 1833 of 2009, it could not have been accepted. 5. I have heard counsel on both sides. The following questions arise for a decision: (i) Whether in the absence of publication under Order 1 Rule 8(2) of the Code the proceeding initiated before the learned W.P(C).Nos23185 and 24440 of 2010 : 8 : Additional District Judge is vitiated? (ii) Whether respondent Nos.8 to 37 are necessary parties to the compromise entered between the original petitioners and respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 7 ? (iii) Whether variation or modification made to the bye-law agreed to between original petitioners and respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 7 was required to be made in writing and signed by them and/or counsel? 6. Point No.I:- Learned counsel for respondent Nos.8 to 21 and 23 to 37 (petitioners in W.P(C).No.24440 of 2010) has contended that though provisions of the Act applied to the Sabha and hence it was within the right of petitioners to bring an original petition of this nature before learned Additional District Judge under Section 25 of the said Act, that provision has to be distinguished from a proceeding Section 9 of the Act. According to the learned counsel Section 9 of the Act related to personal claims while Section 25 related to claims involving public interest, ie. affecting members of the Sabha at large and hence any proceeding under Section 25 of the Act could and should only be in compliance with the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code. According to the learned counsel, a petition under Section 25 of the Act is W.P(C).Nos23185 and 24440 of 2010 : 9 : equivalent to a suit under Section 92 of the Code. It is argued, no publication as required under Order 1 Rule 8(2) of the Code was made and hence the entire proceeding taken is illegal. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. T N Ganapathy (AIR 1990 SC 642), Sree Narayana Dharma Samajam Vs. Mohandas (2005(3) KLT 438) and Vidyodaya Trust Vs. Mohan Prasad (2007(1) KLT 538). In response, it is contended by learned counsel for original petitioners that Secs. 9 and 25 of the Act cannot be read disjunctively Sec.9 of the Act states about binding nature of a decision rendered by the court when the suit or other proceeding is instituted by or against a society represented by its Secretary while Sec.25 of the Act confers power on the District Judge to grant reliefs mentioned therein on a petition filed by the required number of members of the society. According to the learned counsel, a society registered under the Act being a legal entity by itself, any decision made against the society will bind all its members. What is required is only that the society has to sue or be sued through its secretary except in the case covered by the proviso to Sec.9 of the Act. Since the Act itself provides for a binding effect on all members of the society, a publication under W.P(C).Nos23185 and 24440 of 2010 : 10 : Order 1 Rule 8(2) of the Code is not required. Nor could a petition under Sec.25 of the Act be equated to a suit under Sec.92 of the Code. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Sreekumaran Vs. Ardhanareeswara Devaswom & Ors. (1989 (1) KLJ 163) and Abhaya Vs. Raheem (2005(3) KLT 891). 7. Sec. 9 of the Act says that a society may sue or be sued in the name of the Secretary and the proviso to Sec. 9 states about a situation where on the application made by the party concerned any person other than the Secretary is stated to be the person to represent the society. Sec. 25 of the Act deals with the power of the District Judge in a proceeding filed under that provision (the present original petition is filed under the said provision). I am unable to understand Secs. 9 and 25 of the Act as relating to different sets of proceedings, Sec.9 dealing with claims of individual members and Sec. 25 dealing with the claims by or against the society affecting members of the society at large, as learned counsel for additional respondent Nos.8 to 21 and 23 to 37 argued. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for petitioners, Sec.9 only says about the legal character of a society registered with the Registrar as a legal entity by itself W.P(C).Nos23185 and 24440 of 2010 : 11 : apart from the members who constitute it and the binding nature of judgment/order obtained by or against such a society on its members (See Sreekumaran Vs. Ardhanareeswara Devaswom and Ors. (supra)). Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code relates to a situation where there are numerous persons having community of interest in the subject matter of the case and it is impractical to implead all of them as parties to the suit and one or more of such numerous persons sue or is sued. In such cases the decision to bind all persons having community of interest with the person/persons suing or sued, leave of the court to sue or be sued in a representative capacity and a publication as provided under sub rule (1) and (2) of Rule 8 of Order 1 of the Code is required. The said provision has no application to a case where a special statute prescribes a special procedure for binding nature of the decision (as in Sec.9 of the Act). The decisions in Sreekumaran Vs. Ardhanareeswara Devaswom and Ors. (supra)) and Ulahannan Kurian Vs. Markose(2000 (2) KLT 880) and Sree Narayana Dharma Samajam Vs. Mohandas (supra) have taken the view that when a society registered under the Act is suing or is sued, compliance with Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code is not required. I do not find reason to W.P(C).Nos23185 and 24440 of 2010 : 12 : disagree with that view. 8. The decisions relied on by learned counsel for additional respondent Nos.8 to 21 and 23 to 37 have no application to the facts of the case. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. T N Ganapathy (supra) was a representative suit and concerned allotment of building with lands by the Housing Board. Sree Narayana Dharma Samajam Vs. Mohandas (supra) does not in any way support the argument of learned counsel. There, it was held that Sec.25 of the Act confers power on the District Judge for removal of the Governing Body of the society ... etc. Vidyodaya Trust Vs. Mohan Prasad(supra) related to Sec.92 of the Code. In a suit under Sec.92 of the Code it was held, publication under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code is required if the decision in the suit where to bind all other persons interested in the subject matter of the suit. But, a suit under Sec.92 of the Code is different from a proceeding under Sec.25 of the Act. Abhaya Vs. Raheem (supra) has taken the view that a society registered under the Act does not come under the purview of Sec.92 of the Code. I do agree with that view. Hence the analogy in Sec.92 of the Code cannot be drawn to a proceeding under Sec.25 of the Act. I W.P(C).Nos23185 and 24440 of 2010 : 13 : therefore hold that in a proceeding under Sec.25 of the Act a publication under Order 1 Rule 8(2) of the Code is nor required. The contention that in the absence of compliance with the said provision proceeding in the present case before the learned Additional District Judge was vitiated, has to fail. 9. Point No.II :- Then the next question is whether the intervenors (meaning, additional respondent Nos.8 to 37 who appeared pursuant to the publication made as per order dated 21-01-2010 of learned Additional District Judge concerning the settlement reached between petitioners and respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 7) are necessary parties to the settlement arrived at between petitioners and respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 7? I stated that there was a settlement between petitioners and respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 7 as per which certain modifications were made to the existing bye-law and which led to I.A.Nos.1832 and 1833 of 2009. That compromise was signed by petitioners and respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 7 (respondent No.6 – treasurer of the Sabha – by then had vacated his office). It is argued by learned counsel for additional respondent Nos.8 to 21 and 23 to 37 that since additional respondent Nos.8 to 37 were impleaded in the original petition as per order dated 21-05-2010 on I.A.No.2240 of 2009 W.P(C).Nos23185 and 24440 of 2010 : 14 : they were also required to be parties to the compromise, otherwise the compromise is not in compliance of Rule 3 of Order XXIII of th Code and hence is not valid and could not be accepted or acted upon. Reliance is placed on the decision in Sneh Gupta Vs. Devi Sarup (2009(2) KLT S.N58 (Case NO.63) SC) to contend that a compromise or satisfaction not complying with Rule 3 of Order XXIII of the Code is not binding on the parties who have not joined the compromise. In defense, it is argued by learned counsel for petitioners that going by the scheme of Rule 3 of Order XXIII of the Code, when a compromise is entered between parties to the proceedings what is required is to give publication of that compromise and when persons who are interested in the