IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17074 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.469/2008 of PRL.MUNSIFF'S COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SREE NARAYANA DHARMA SAMAJAM, REG.NO.ER 90/1972,AYYAPPANKAVU,KOCHI-18,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY K.R.SIDHARTHAN,S/O.RAVUNNY, RESIDING AT KOLPURATHU HOUSE, RADHA OIL MILL ROAD, PACHALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.S.SUDHISH KUMAR, MR.K.B.DAYAL, MR.SIBI KARUN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. P.R.RADHAKRISHNAN,AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN CHADAYANMURI HOUSE, AYYAPPANKAVU, KOCHI-18. 2. V.K.RAGHURAJAN, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O. KUMARAN, PULIYANEZHATHU, AYYAPPPANKAVU, KOCHI-18. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.17074 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “To call for the lower court records in O.S.No.469/2008 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam and set aside exhibit P3 order.” 2. Petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.469/2008 pending on the file of the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam. Suit was one for declaration that defendants 1 to 4 have no right or authority to recall the membership or readmit any person as a member of the first defendant samajam in violation of the provisions under its bye laws and also for consequential reliefs. The case of the plaintiff in short was the defendants 2 to 3 and the secretary of the Samajam who represented the first defendant in violation of the bye laws admitted several persons as its members, and two of them were impleaded as defendants 5 and 6 in the suit. The plaintiff moved an application under Order I Rule 8 CPC seeking direction/orders from the court to the effect that defendants 5 and 6 shall represent all persons who W.P.(C).No.17074 of 2009 - O 2 have been inducted as members to the samajam in violation of its bye laws. The application was objected to by the defendants. The learned Munsiff after hearing both sides passed an order that the defendants in the suit shall represent the persons who have been inducted as members of the samajam, directing the plaintiff to effect publication of such representation. Ext.P3 is the copy of that order. First defendant has filed this writ petition challenging the propriety and correctness of that order invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances presented and taking note of Ext.P3 order, I find notice to the respondents is not necessary, and it is dispensed with. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the samajam cannot represent in the nature of the allegations raised and the relief claimed all the members who were stated to have been inducted in the samajam in violation of the bye laws and, so much so, the order passed by the court below directing that the W.P.(C).No.17074 of 2009 - O 3 defendants in the suit including the samajam to represent them is patently erroneous and unsustainable. I find considerable force in the submission made by the counsel. It appears that without taking note of the affidavit sworn to in support of the petition filed by the plaintiff and the mistake which had crept in the petition seeking the representation of all the newly inducted members in violation of the bye laws by the defendants, the court passed Ext.P3 order. In fact, it is evident, the plaintiff wanted the persons who have been so inducted as members of the samajam to be represented by defendants 5 and 6 only, but, by a mistake, it seems, in the petition such representation was sought by all the defendants in the suit and it was literally accepted by the court while passing Ext.P3 order. Defendants 5 and 6 are similarly placed with those inducted in violation of the bye laws, is the case of the plaintiff and they should be represent such persons was the case canvassed in their affidavit. That being the case and also in the nature of the allegations raised and relief claimed, the representation of the newly inducted members which are stated to be in violation of the bye laws should have been W.P.(C).No.17074 of 2009 - O 4 confined to defendants 5 and 6 only and not by all the defendants in the suit including the first defendant samajam represented by its secretary. Ext.P3 is set aside and the court below is directed to pass orders afresh on the petition moved by the plaintiff within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Send a copy of the judgment to the court concerned and hand over a copy to the counsel for the petitioner on usual terms. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-