IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 13001 of 2010(O) -------------------------- CMA.20/2008 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA O.S.NO.137/2005 OF SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUJATHAN, KOTTAPURATHU, KOTTARAKAVU, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.GEORGE RAJU SMT.SURYA SASI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE S.N.D.P.YOGAM, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER, GENERAL SECRETARY, V.K.NATESAN, KOLLAM. 2. V.K.NATESAN, VELLAPPALLY, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. RAJAN BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.13001 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010. JUDGMENT Advocate Shri Rajan Babu takes notice for respondents. 2. Plaintiff No.1 in O.S.No.137 of 2005 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Mavelikkara challenges Ext.P6, judgment in C.M.A.No.20 of 2008 of the court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Mavelikkara confirming the order on I.A.No.1409 of 2007 passed by the learned Sub Judge. Petitioner and others filed the suit under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) for a declaration that respondents/defendant Nos.1 and 2 have no authority to interfere with the management and administration of the affairs and assets of the SNDP Union, Mavelikkara branch and its constituent sakhas and for consequential injunction. Petitioner and others filed I.A.No.1312 of 2007 for an order of temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from expelling petitioner and others from membership of respondent No.1/defendant No.1 (SNDP Yogam) or doing any act affecting the individual member rights of petitioner and others. While that petition was pending respondent No.2/defendant No.2 expelled petitioner and others from the membership of respondent No.1/defendant No.1 for a period of five (5) years and hence petitioner and others filed Ext.P3, application for mandatory injunction to direct the respondents to cancel expulsion of petitioner and others from the WP(C) No.13001/2010 2 membership for respondent No.1. Learned Sub Judge dismissed Ext.P3, application vide Ext.P5, order which has been confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge-I as per Ext.P6, judgment in C.M.A.No.20 of 2008. Hence this Writ Petition. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that finding entered by the courts below and the ultimate decision reached are erroneous in that respondents/defendant Nos.1 and 2 had no right to take disciplinary action against petitioner and others. 3. Courts below have observed that even the very prayer made by the petitioner in Ext.P3 is beyond the scope of the suit since there is no challenge to the disciplinary action taken or proposed to be taken against petitioner and others in the suit. It is found by the courts below that if the contention of the petitioner were that SNDP Union, Mavelikkara was not a constituent of respondent No.1/defendant No.1 (SNDP Yogam), there is no reason why petitioner should be worried about the disciplinary action taken by respondent No.1. It is also found by the courts below that prima facie, respondent No.2/defendant No.2 had the authority to take disciplinary action against any member of the SNDP Yogam and that it is on the strength of report of domestic enquiry that disciplinary action was taken against petitioner and others. The order was duly served on petitioner and others who had a statutory remedy of appeal as provided under the Articles of Association of respondent No.1. WP(C) No.13001/2010 3 Courts below considered the rival contentions and found that no prima facie case is made out against respondents justifying the grant of mandatory injunction as prayed for in Ext.P3, application and that no irreparable injury or damage is caused to the petitioner and others. Having regard to the nature of contentions raised and the materials on record and going through the order/judgment I do not find any illegality, manifest injustice or, exercise of jurisdiction which the courts below did not have or any illegal exercise of the jurisdiction it had so that this Court is required to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 of 227 of the Constitution. Therefore the challenge to Ext.P6, judgment has to fail. 4. At this stage learned counsel for petitioner requested that petitioner may be allowed to amend the plaint seeking relief against respondent Nos.1 and 2/defendant Nos.1 and 2 as regards disciplinary proceedings as well. Learned counsel for respondents would submit that in case there is any dispute between members and SNDP Yogam or, between Sakha and SNDP Yogam or SNDP Union and SNDP Yogam such dispute is arbitrarable under Article 71 of the Articles of Association and no suit would lie. At any rate, the dispute is to be settled at the courts at Kollam and hence court at Mavelikkara has no jurisdiction. These contentions are not required to be considered in this Writ Petition since the challenge in this petition is only to the correctness of Ext.P6, WP(C) No.13001/2010 4 judgment which I found, there is no reason to interfere. I make it clear that it will be open to the petitioner and others to amend the plaint if they are so advised and if they are entitled to such a course and the respondents will have the opportunity to raise their objections as well. Learned Sub Judge shall dispose of the suit untrammelled by any of the observation contained in Ext.P5, order, Ext.P6, judgment or, this judgment. With the above observation this Writ Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks