IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23368 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- I.A.3113/2009 IN OS.672/2008 of II ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SOUTH INDIAN BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION MISSION QUARTERS PO, THRISSUR DIST, REP. BY 1.PRESIDENT PETER ANTO NELLISSERY & 2.GENERAL SECRETARY T.SASIKUMAR. BY ADV. MR.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ JEKKO, S/O.CHERU, VADAKOOT HOUSE, THAIKKATTUSSERY PO, THRISSUR DIST. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.23368 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To call for the records relating to Ext.P6 and quash the same by a Writ of Certiorari or such other Writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit. ii) To grant an interim order staying the proceedings in O.S.No.672/2008 in the court below, pending disposal of this writ petition.” 2. Petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.672 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Munsiff Court, Thrissur. Suit is one for injunction, filed by the first respondent. Election to the petitioner association should be conducted strictly in accordance with its byelaws and attempts are being made by the office bearers of the petitioner association to conduct the election discarding the byelaws was the case canvassed by the first respondent/plaintiff to seek a decree of injunction. Pursuant to the appearance of the defendants in the suit, it is submitted, an W.P.(C).No.23368 of 2009 - O 2 application was moved by the plaintiff for election to the petitioner association under the supervision of an advocate commissioner appointed by the court. After such an election was over, first respondent/plaintiff moved an application for amending the plaint to declare that the entire process of election as null and void as it was done in violation of the provisions of the byelaws of the petitioner association. Though the petitioner association and other defendants in the suit resisted that amendment application, the learned Munsiff, after hearing both sides allowed it vide Ext.P6 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P6 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. 4. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented with reference to the materials tendered with the petition, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and hence it is dispensed with. W.P.(C).No.23368 of 2009 - O 3 5. The election was conducted under the supervision of an advocate commissioner appointed by the court and so much so, the challenge raised the election in the very same suit by way of an amendment by the plaintiff should not have been granted by the court, submits the counsel. It is further submitted that in view of the amendment allowed, the office bearers elected pursuant to the election held have also to be impleaded as parties to the suit without which a decree binding on them could not be passed. I am not impressed by the submissions made by the counsel. Perusing Ext.P6 order, I find the amendment sought for by the plaintiff was found necessary by the learned Munsiff to resolve the controversy arising for adjudication in the suit. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the discretion exercised by the learned Munsiff in allowing the amendment application. The election was conducted under the supervision of an advocate commissioner appointed by the court will not give that election more sanctity if election process was not in compliance with the byelaws of the association. Impleadment of newly elected officer bearers as parties to suit may not be necessary as the petitioner W.P.(C).No.23368 of 2009 - O 4 association, is already in the party array. If at all anybody is interested, they can come forward and set themselves impleaded in the suit. If any of the newly elected office bearers’ files application for impleading themselves, the court below shall consider such application for impleadment in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders. Subject to the above observation, this writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-