P.Mohamed Saleem v. Asaithambi
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.11.2019 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 1.P.Mohamed Saleem 2.Habibullah 3.Kareemgani 4.A.Vaguthar Ali 5.Azath 6.Mohamed Kareem 7.Mohamed Myaheem 8.Askoor Khan 9.Pitchai Mohamed 10.Mohamed Ibrahimsha 11.Mohamed Ibrahimsha 12.J.Sikkandar 13.Liyakath Ali 14.Abdul Bias 15.A.Yoosuf 16.Savukath Ali Jinnah 17.A.Alavudeen 18.Abdul Muthalif 19.Midhar Hussain 20.Abdul Raheem 21.Mohamed Mustafa 22.P.Ansar Ali 23.Mohamed Sulaiman 24.Mohamed Meera 25.Samsudheen 26.S.M.Sikkandar 27.S.Habeeb 28.S.M.A.Uzman Ali 29.Rasoolkhan 30.Jiyavudeen 31.V.Sikkandar 32.S.E.R.Mohamed Yoosuf 33.M.Abdul Raheem 34.A.Jainulabdeen 35.R.Jabbar 36.Sheik Abdullah 37.Mohamed Ismail 38.Dawood 39.Mohaideen Gani 40.Sabi Mohamed 41.Sheik Mydeen
42. Shajahan 43.V.R.K.Yoosuf 1/5
44.V.R.K.Alavudheen 45.Khaja Najmudheen 46.M.L.Mohamed Ali 47.Mohamed Haneefa
48. S.Mohammed 49.Mohamed Rabi 50.Mohamed Sabi 51.S.Mohamed Ibraheem 52.Mansoor Ali 53.Peer Mohamed 54.Sikkandar 55.Ithrishkan 56.Shahul Hameed 57.Saleem 58.Uthuman Ali 59.Sathik Batcha 60.Yoonus 61.Liyagath Ali 62.Iyoob Khan 63.Gows Mohamed 64.Jainulavudheen 65.Shahul Hameed 66.Nijam Mohaideen 67.Jaleel
68. Shahul Hameed 69.Subuhan 70.Jalaludheen ... Petitioners /Petitioners 1 to 9, 11 to 54, 56 to 72 Proposed Defendants Vs.
1.Asaithambi ..1st Respondent/1st Respondent/Plaintiff 2.Khadar Basha 3.Mohamed Ali Jinnah 4.Mohamed Ali 5.District Registrar District Registrar Office, Tiruppathur Road, Sivagangai Nagar, Sivagangai District.
6.District Education Officer, Sivagangai.
7.S.Ravuthar Naina 8,Umar 9.A.S.Abdul Razak 2/5
10.Mohamed Hussain 11.K.Peroskhan 12.M.Saibullah 13.P.Y.Sikkandar 14.K.S.K.Mohamed Ali 15.K.E.Safekhan 16.S.Shajahan 17.Hayathkhan
18. S.Sandi Jinnah ..Respondents 2 to 18/Respondents 2 to 18/ Defendants 19.Ramzan Ali ..19th Respondent/10th Petitioner
20. Malik ... 20th Respondent/55th Petitioner/ Proposed Defendants PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Order and decreetal order dated 23.11.2010 made in I.A.No.31 of 2010 in O.S.No.50 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court cum Judicial Magistrate, Ilayankudi.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Nagarajan For R2 - R4 : Mr.A.Arumugam for M/s Ajmal Associates For R7 - R18 : Mr.G.Vidyamaheswaran
O R D E R
The proposed parties are the revision petitioners before this Court.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposing of this revision, without traversing into factual details, are as follows: 2.i) The father-in-law of the plaintiff in O.S.No.50 of 2008 had earlier filed a suit in O.S.14 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ilayangudi for declaring the Elections that were held for the period starting from 1991 to 1993 and ending to 2003-2005 as null and void, and to declare the inclusion of new 3/5
members numbering 400 as void as they were not eligible to be members as per the by-laws of the Society, directing the 15th defendant either by himself or supporting to conduct the future elections. The said suit was decreed by decree and judgment dated 06.06.2006 as against which A.S.No.71 of 2006 was filed on the file of the Subordinate Court, Sivagangai, by the aggrieved defendants. The learned Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai was pleased to remit back the matter and the same has been challenged before this Court in C.M.A.No.1430 of 2008 and there is an order of stay of all further proceedings in the earlier proceedings.
2.ii) After remand order by the learned Subordinate Judge,Sivagangai in A.S.No.71 of 2008, the present petitioner has filed O.S.No.50 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif, Ilayangudi seeking reliefs with reference to the election that had been held from the period 2006 onwards. The present petitioners had taken out the petition to implead themselves in the suit O.S.No.50 of 2008 application after the suit was posted on 17.2.2010 for cross examination of P.W.1. The only ground put forward for seeking to have themselves impleaded is that they are the members of the management of the Haji Ibrahim Ali Higher Secondary School, which is not the party to the proceedings. The respondent/plaintiff had filed the counter inter alia contending that the petitioners had been deleted from array of membership of the management and the voters list that had been given by the respondents dated 07.10.2015had been approved by the court and therefore the present petition is not maintainable.
2.iii) The learned District Munsif, Ilayangudi by his order dated 23.11.2010 was pleased to dismiss this application on the ground that the suit had reached an advanced stage and no relief was sought for against the proposed party and therefore, they are neither proper nor necessary party. This order has been challenged by the revision petitioners/proposed parties.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent has reiterated the contents that has been in the impugned order that has been the subject matter of this writ petition.
4. Heard the learned counsels and perused the papers.
5. A reading of the records would indicate that in the earlier suit O.S.NO.50 of 2008 the petitioners were deleted from the membership of the suit management. This has been challenged. The petitioners cannot compel the plaintiff, who is the dominus litus, to implead them. Further they are neither proper nor necessary parties to this suit. In these circumstances and considering the fact that no relief is sought for against the proposed parties, I do not find infirmity in the order passed by the District Munsif Court cum Judicial Magistrate, Ilayankudi.in I.A.No.31 of 2010 in O.S.No.50 of 2008.
4/5
6. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar () // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) CM To The District Munsif Court cum Judicial Magistrate, Ilayankudi.
+1 CC to M/s.AJMAL ASSOCIATES, Advocate ( SR-97699[F] dated 12/11/2019 ) and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 11.11.2019 VB(11.12.2019) 5P 3C 5/5