John Vincent, Siluvaimuthu and Ashok vs D. Vedanayagam and Others

R.S. Ramanathan, J.—The Petitioners in I.A. No. 525 of 2008 in I.A. No. 739 of 2007 in O.S. No. 194 of 2007, on the file of the

Additional District Munsif, Nanguneri are the revision Petitioners.

The suit in O.S. No. 194 of 2007, was filed by the fifth Respondent in this revision in a representative capacity against the Respondents 6 to 11

for declaration that the election to the Pastoral Committees, Church Councils and Diocesan Council of the first Defendant Diocese held on

07.10.2007, 12.10.2007 and 20.10.2007 are null and void non-est and not binding on the members of first Defendant Diocese and for other

reliefs. The fifth Respondent herein also filed an I.A. No. 739 of 2007, for injunction restraining the Respondents 6 to 8 from conducting any

elections including the election to the Executive committee, Sub Committees, Office of Lay Secretary, Vice Chairman and Clerical Secretary of 1st

Defendant Diocese till the disposal of the suit and the learned Additional District Munsif, Nanguneri disposed of the said application on

30.11.2007 by issuing certain directions and permitted them to conduct the next phase of election subject to the direction stated therein. This order

was passed in I.A. No. 739 of 2007. That order was challenged by a third party to the suit in CRP (PD) No. 1764 of 2007 and this Court

allowed the revision setting aside the order of the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Nanguneri made in I.A. No. 739 of 2007 in O.S.194

of 2007 on 14.12.2007.

Therefore, the revision Petitioners herein filed I.A. No. 525 of 2008, for restoration, to place the members of Diocese of Tirunelveli in a position

which they had occupied prior to 30.11.2007. In that petition the Respondents 1 to 4 who claimed to have been elected in the subsequent phase

of election pursuant to the order passed in I.A. No. 739 of 2007, wanted to get themselves impleaded and therefore, filed I.A. No. 574 of 2008 in

I.A. No. 525 of 2008, to implead themselves and that petition was allowed by the learned Additional District Munsif and against the same, this

revision is filed.

Mr. M. Vallinayagam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the application filed by the Respondents 1 to 4 is liable to be

rejected on the ground that they claimed to have been elected on the basis of the election held pursuant to the direction given in I.A. No. 739 of

2007 and the order passed in I.A. No. 739 of 2007 was set aside by this Court in revision and therefore, they cannot claim any right over the post

and hence, they are not necessary parties and without impleading themselves as parties in the suit they cannot claim any right over the post.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the Respondents 1 to 4 are necessary parties and they

were elected to various posts and even though the order passed in I.A. No. 739 of 2007, was set aside by this Court in revision, they are

necessary parties as they are holding the post.

According to me, the petition filed by the Respondents 1 to 4 to get themselves impleaded in I.A. No. 525 of 2008 is not maintainable.

Admittedly, the suit was filed by the fifth Respondent herein in the representative capacity and the 6th Respondent, in the suit was also made a

party in the representative capacity. As per Order 1 Rule 8(3) any person on whose behalf, or for whose benefit, a suit is instituted, or defended,

under Sub-rule (1), may apply to the Court to be made a party to such suit. Therefore, under Order 1 Rule 8 even though the suit was filed in the

representative capacity any person on whose behalf, or for whose benefit, a suit is instituted, or defended, may apply to the Court to be made a

party to such suit and in this case admittedly no such application was filed to implead the Respondents 1 to 4 herein as parties to the suit. The

Respondents 1 to 4 filed the above application to implead themselves in I.A. No. 525 of 2008, filed by the revision Petitioners and therefore,

without filing the application to implead themselves in the suit, the application filed to implead in the interlocutory application is not maintainable. It

is seen from the cause title that revision Petitioners also were not parties to the suit. Nevertheless, they have filed the application I.A. No. 525 of

2008 and that was numbered and the maintainability of that petition can be considered by the lower court and simply because the revision

Petitioners filed I.A. No. 525 of 2008, without filing the application to implead themselves in the suit, the Respondents 1 to 4 cannot justify their

action by filing the application to implead themselves in the application filed by the revision Petitioners.

Further, under Order 1 Rule 10 only proper and necessary parties can be added as parties to the suit and whose person is necessary for the

effective adjudication list. As a matter of fact in the judgment rendered in S. Krishnan Vs. Rathinavel Naicker and Others, , the learned Judge has

categorised the tests to be applied for determining the right of a party to get himself impleaded and if any person falls under any one of those

categories he is entitled to get the discretion of the Court to be exercised in his favour. As per the above judgment the following categories are

mentioned in paragraph No. 17:

(a) If without his presence no effective and complete adjudication could be made;

(b) If his presence is necessary for a complete and effectual adjudication of the dispute though no relief is claimed against him;

(c ) If there is a cause of action against him;

(d) If the relief sought in the Suit or other proceedings is likely to be made binding on him;

(e) If the ultimate outcome of the proceedings is likely affect him adversely;

(f) If his role is really that of a necessary witness but is sought to be camouflaged as a Necessary party;

As stated supra, the Respondents 1 to 4 wanted to implead themselves, as they were elected in the elections conducted as per the direction

made in I.A. No. 739 of 2007. Even though, they wanted to get themselves impleaded to protect their interest, as stated supra, they have to file an

application to implead themselves in the suit and without doing so, they cannot get themselves impleaded in the application filed by the revision

Petitioners and on that ground, they are not entitled to get themselves impleaded in the application filed by the revision Petitioner. Further, in my

opinion they are not necessary or proper parties for effective adjudication of the case. Hence, the order of the lower court in allowing the

application filed by the Respondents 1 to 4 is set aside.

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.