IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4431 AND 4510 OF 2009 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4431 OF 2009 Between: Maturi Venkata Rao and others ..... PETITIONERS AND Sri Sainadha Educational Society and others ....RESPONDENTS CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4510 OF 2009 Between: Jemmigumpula Masthanaiah Naidu and others ..... PETITIONERS AND Sri Sainadha Educational Society and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4431 AND 4510 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: The respondents 1 to 8 herein filed S.R.O.P.No.2 of 2007 on the file of Principal District Judge, Ongole praying to set aside the resolutions dated 17.07.2006, 07.08.2006 and 18.08.2006 said to have been passed by Sri Sainadha Educational Society (for short, ‘the Society’). The parties will be referred as they are arrayed in the lower Court for the sake of convenience. As seen from the record it appears that the Society was established in the year 1997 with Vayyeti Subba Reddy as its President. Subsequently, there were resignations and inductions of some of the office bearers and members of one Society. The main dispute between the parties seems to have been arisen with the resolution dated 17.07.2006 said to have been passed by the general body meeting of the Society and the consequential resolutions dated 07.08.2006 and 18.08.2006 were said to have been passed. As seen from the petition averments itself it is alleged that on 17.07.2006 the 1st respondent is said to have been conducted general body meeting by under which the following members were said to have been inducted as governing body members: 1. Smt. Maturi Radha wife of Maturi Venkata Rao 2. Smt. Maturi Satyavathi wife of Maturi Chalapathi Rao 3. Smt. Maturi Varalakshmi wife of Maturi Jaganmohan Rao and 4. S r i Jammikumpala Mastanaiah Naidu @ J.M.Naidu son of Pitchaiah in S.R.O.P.No.2 of 2007. It is not in dispute that the petitioners in C.R.P.No.4510 of 2009 are not parties to the petition in the lower Court. Though several other points have been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both these revisions, we are not inclined to discuss all those points and we would like to confine ourselves to only one point i.e., whether the S.R.O.P.No.2 of 2007 is maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties ? The main submission of Sri M.Venkatanarayana, learned counsel for the respondents is that the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment in case between Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd and another[1]. It is also his submission that the respondents in the lower Court have not taken a plea with regard to non-joinder of necessary parties. It is also his contention that since respondent No.4 in the lower Court was subsequently made as Secretary and Correspondent replacing the 2nd petitioner he has been impleaded as 4th respondent. It is also his submission that there is no record to show that the petitioners in C.R.P.No.4510 of 2009 i.e., who have been subsequently included as the members along with respondent No.4, have paid any membership fee to the Society or that they participated in any meeting in such Society. It is also his submission that the absence of any record to show that they have become the members of the Society or that they have participated in the meetings of the Society, there was no need for the petitioners in the lower Court to implead them as parties to the petition. It is also his submission that objections with regard to the necessary parties ought to have been taken before the lower Court and once they have not taken the objections no suit shall be defeated under Order I Rule 9 of C.P.C. for mis-joinder and non- joinder of parties. It is also his submission that all objections on the ground of non-joinder and mis-joinder of the parties shall be taken to the earliest possible opportunity as required under Rule 13 of Order I C.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners/respondents Sri S.V.Bhatt submitted that admittedly the petitioners in C.R.P.No.4510 of 2009 being admitted as members of the governing body and the petition averments itself shows that they were inducted as members and when such is the case they are necessary parties and that the submission of Sri Venkatanarayana will not apply when it is a case of the non-joinder of necessary party. Now the points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether this Court can interfere where it appears that there is gross violation of principles of natural justice ? 2. Whether the petitioners in C.R.P.No.4510 of 2009 are necessary parties? Point No.1: Article 227 of the Constitution of India envisages that every High Court shall have superintendence overall Courts and Tribunals through out the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. It is settled law that powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have to be exercised sparingly. But however where it appears that the proceedings resulted in manifest injustice or in gross violation of principles of natural justice it is obligatory on the part of High Court to undo injustice and do justice. Admittedly petitioners in C.R.P.No.4510 of 2009 are not parties to S.R.O.P.No.2 of 2007 on the file of Principal District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole. Admittedly no notice was given to them and there was no opportunity to them to put forth their case. But the averments of S.R.O.P.No.2 of 2007 itself show that main challenge is with regard to resolution dated 17.07.2006 by which the petitioners in C.R.P.No.4510 of 2009 are said to have been inducted as members of the Society. Therefore, it is clear that there is violation of principles of natural justice and in the circumstances Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. Now the question whether they have paid the membership fee of the Society or not or whether they have participated in the subsequent meetings or not or whether any rights have been accrued to them or not cannot be decided in their absence without giving them an opportunity to put forth their case. The basic principle of natural justice is that no order can be passed affecting the rights of any party without giving them an opportunity to put forth their case. On the face of record it appears that there is violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. Point No.2: As far, an application under Order I Rule 9 C.P.C is concerned, it appears that no suit can be defeated merely on the ground of non-joinder of a party or mis-joinder of a party. But it is also settled law that it will not apply to a situation where it is a case of non-joinder of a necessary party. Of course as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents objection with regard to the non-joinder of necessary parties must be taken at the earliest point of time and at the initial stage of the proceedings. However merely because the contesting respondents did not take any objection with regard to non-joinder of a necessary party the rights of such party cannot be defeated on that ground. In the result, these two Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower Court. The petitioners in the lower Court shall file an application for impleading the petitioners in C.R.P.No.4510 of 2009 within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order and then the lower Court shall proceed with the matter by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties and shall try to dispose of the matter as early as possible preferably within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ______________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J 19th July 2010. Ivd [1] (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 524