IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 35730 of 2005(C) -------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/12/2005 IN IA 918/2005 IN OS.192/2000 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. QUILON MEDICAL LIBRARY & RECREATION CENTRE, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS HON.SECRETARY. 2. THE PRESIDENT, QUILON MEDICAL LIBRARY AND DOCTORS RECREATION CENTRE, KOLLAM. 3. THE HON. SECRETARY, QUILON MEDICAL LIBRARY AND DOCTORS RECREATION CENTRE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.PRAKASH PUTHIADAM SRI.PAUL JACOB (P) SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER SRI.NAVEEN CHERIAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. DR. D. JAYAPRAKASH, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. DAMODARAN, JANUVILAS, MAYYANAD, KOLLAM. 2. DR. V.CHANDRA MOHANAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. VASUDEVAN, REVATHY, THATTAMALA, KOLLAM. 3. DR. P.T. CHERIYAN, S/O. P.K.THOMAS, PULIVELIL VADAKKUMBHAGOM, KOLLAM. 4. DR. GANGA JAYAPRAKASH, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, D.J.M. HOSPITAL, MAYYANAD P.O., KOLLAM-691 303. W.P.(C) NO.35730/2005 5. DR. D.MANIKANTAN, SRAVANAM, Y'S MENS COLONY, MADANNADA, VADAKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM. 6. DR. RAVIKUMAR, S/O. R.KUNJANPILLAI, NIRMALAYAM, PATTATHANAM, KOLLAM. 7. DR. BIJU B. NEUN, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. C.V. NELSON, ABHILASH, PATTATHANAM P.O., KOLLAM. 8. DR. N.S.JINEN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. P.R. NATESAN, RAKENDU, PUNNATHALA SOUTH, KOLLAM-691012. 9. DR. B.HARIDASAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. N.BALAKRISHNAN, SABARIGIRI, KUNDARA-691501. 10. DR. THOMAS PHILIP, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. K.J. PHILIP, ANJELI HOUSE, KARUMALI ROAD, TANGASSERI. 11. DR. S.JAGADISH, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. K. SIVADAS, SIVASREE, VADAKKUMBHAGOM, KOLLAM-1. 12. DR. N.RAJENDRA PRASAD, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN ISWARIA, POLAYATHODU, KOLLAM. 13. DR. K.SARAT CHANDRA BABU, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. P.KESAVAN VAIDYAN, SIVA RAJYAM, P.O. KILIKOLLOOR. 14. DR. ALFRED V. SAMUEL, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. V.K. SAMUEL, GHAZAL P.O., VELICHIKKALA, KOLLAM-691573. 15. DR. MOHAN G., AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. P.V.GOPALA PILLAI, MOHANVILLA, CUTCHERRY WARD, KOLLAM-691913. 16. DR. RONY ALEX CHERIAN, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. P.T. CHERIYAN, PULIVELIL, VADAKKUMBHAGOM, KOLLAM-1. (REPRESENTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER WHO IS THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER). 17. DR. ROY KOSHY CHERIAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. D.R.P.T.CHERIYAN, PULIVELI, VADAKKUMBHAGOM, KOLLAM-1. (REPRESENTED BY 3RD PETITIONER WHO IS THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER). W.P.(C) NO.35730/2005 18. DR. C.D. RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 62 YEARS, KAMMANCHERY VEEDU, S.I. SANKAR NAGAR, KOLLAM-1. 19. DR. C.V. PRATHAPAN, AGED 62 YEARS, PRASANTH T.B., HOSPITAL ROAD, KOLLAM-1. 20. DR.D.SREEKUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS, ANEPPIL, KANKATHUMUKKU, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.35730/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS. 192/2000 ON THE FILES OF SUB COURT, KOLLAM. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 17.11.04 IN CRP. NO.1560/2002. EXT.P2(a):- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 5.8.05 IN OA. 96/05 IN CRP. 1560/02. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY 17 PERSONS AS IA. 918/05 IN OS. NO.192/2000. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE OBJECTION DT. 24.10.05 FILED BY THE WRIT PETITIONERS TO IA. 918/05. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 7.12.05 IN IA. 918/05 IN OS. 192/00 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT KOLLAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R1(a):- COPY OF THE IST PETITIONER AS ORIGINALLY STOOD . EXT.R1(b):- COPY OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE IST PETITIOENR WITH THE IST AMENDMENT, UNDER CHALLENGE THE SUIT . EXT.R1(c):- COPY OF THE IST PETITIONERWITH THE 2ND AMENDMENT UNDER CHALLENGE IN THE SUIT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. .......................................................... W.P.(C)No.35730 OF 2005 ........................................................... DATED THIS THE JULY, 2007 J U D G M E N T Defendants 1 to 3, the Quilon Medical Library and Recreation Centre, its President and its Secretary in a suit filed by respondents 18 to 20, three members of the 1st petitioner-Centre for setting aside a decision taken at the annual general meeting of the 1st petitioner are aggrieved by Ext.P5 order of the trial court by which that court has allowed impleadment of 17 persons, respondents 1 to 17 in the Writ Petition, as additional defendants. Hence this Writ Petition under Article 227 invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to set aside Ext.P5. Ext.P1 is copy of the plaint which will show that the prayers are for a declaration that the proceedings held on 29.4.2000 by defendants 2 and 3, including the amendments to the bylaws of the 1st defendant and the election to the various offices in the 1st defendant-Centre are null and void or in the alternative to set aside them and also for a declaration that the amendments which are seen passed with effect from 1981 to 1998 are null and void or in the alternative to set aside those amendments, on the basis that there are a large number of members for the 1st defendant and it is not practicable to include all of them eo nomine. An application for leave to WP(C)N0. -2- sue defendants 2 and 3 who are also members of the Centre in a representative capacity was moved under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C. and a publication was also made in that regard. The petitioners point out that pursuant to the publication, two parties, viz., the Indian Medical Association and one Dr.D.Jayaprakash sought their impleadment as additional defendants which was allowed by the trial court as per the order in I.A.763/02. The above order however was set aside by this Court in C.R.P.1560 of 2002 and Ext.P2 is copy of that order. Ext.P2 was later clarified by this Court and Ext.P2(a) is the clarificatory order. After Ext.P2, Dr.D.Jayaprakash, the first respondent herein and 16 others filed fresh I.A. Ext.P3 seeking their impleadment under order 1 Rule 10(2) ad additional defendants in the suit. The plaintiffs did not oppose the application, but the petitioners filed Ext.P4 obje tions raising various contentions. The court below however, allowed Ext.OP3 under Ext.P5 order. Ext.P5 order is challenged by the petitioners on various grounds including the ground that it was without considering Ext.P4 objections that Ext.P5 has been passed. The contesting respondents, the defendants in the suit have filed a detailed counter affidavit justifying Ext.P5 order. According to this counter affidavit this court under Exts. P2 and P2(a) has permitted the court WP(C)N0. -3- below to pass orders in accordance with law and that Exts.P2 and P2 (a) cannot be warmed for entertaining Exts.P3 and passing Ext.P5. The original constitution of the first petitioner club is produced as Ext.R1(a) and the amended constitutions are produced as Ext.R1(b) and R1(c) respectively. It is pointed out that it is the amendments introduced in the constitution as per Ext.R1(b) and © which are challenged in the suit and that the main ground of attack is that the amended provision used in (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) tgl WP(C)N0. -4-