Royal Villa Residents Association vs The Project Management Committee

R.S. Ramanathan, J.—This Civil Revision Petition is filed to strike out the plaint in O.S. No. 4636 of 2012, on the file of the II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. The respondents filed the above suit for injunction and the revision Petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit filed this revision petition stating that the suit filed by the respondents without resorting to order 1 Rule 8 of CPC is not maintainable.

It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. M.S. Krishnan that the respondents is not a registered Association and even according to the Plaintiffs allegation, the Officers Co-operative Housing Society is a registered Association and the respondents is only a committee of that Association and therefore, any suit filed by the respondents has to comply with the provisions under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC as the respondents is representing various persons and therefore, the suit filed without complying with the provisions under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC is not maintainable. He relied upon the judgment in the case of Maruthamuthu Vs. Ponni Sugars (Erode) Limited, President and Finance and Administrative Officer Ponni Sugars (Erode) Limited, Formation of Indian Network Marketing Association Vs. Apple FMCG Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and Others, and S. Nesamony Nadar Vs. Nidalam Government High School, Improvement Committee, , Improvement Committee in support of his contention.

On the other hand, Mr. G.RM. Palaniappan, learned counsel submitted that there is no need to comply with the order 8 Rule 1 of CPC and the respondents/Plaintiffs is a constituent of Officers Co-operative Society which is a registered Association and both of them are represented by the same persons and therefore the suit has been validly instituted by the authorised persons. He further submitted that even assuming that Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC has not been followed, the suit cannot be struck down on that ground, as it is always open to the Plaintiffs to file necessary application seeking permission of the Court to file a suit in the representative capacity and relied upon the judgment reported in 1996-2-L.W.456 in the matter of Nilgiri District Janata Party, represented by its Secretary, Thiru. N. Chickiah, Kamaraj Bhavan, Lower Bazaar Road, Uthagamandalam vs. A. Rahim and 3 others. He also relied upon the judgment reported in Hari Ram Vs. Jyoti Prasad and Another, wherein, the Honourable Supreme Court held that when an aggrieved person filed a suit, the suit cannot be dismissed on the ground of non-compliance of Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC even though some other persons were also interested along with the person who filed the suit. He also relied upon the judgment reported in 2011-2-L.W.790 in the matter of S. Vetrivel and another vs. Tamil Nadu Advocates Association, represented by its Secretary A. Baskar and two others, wherein, the Honourable Division Bench of this Court held that when the defendants acquiesced in the jurisdiction of the Court did not raise any objection in the Written Statement that the provisions under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC was not complied with the rules, it can be presumed that the defendants have waived their right to take the plea that the suit was bad for non-compliance of Order 1 Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code. According to me, without going into the merits of the contentions raised by both the parties, at this stage, the suit cannot be struck down on the ground of non-compliance of Order 1 Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code. To attract the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code, the suit must have been filed in the representative capacity and admittedly, the suit was filed by the respondents representing the Project Management Committee, Kotturpruam Officers Co-operative Housing Society which is a registered body under the Societies Registration Act and where the Project Management Committee which is a part of the Officers Co-operative Housing Society can file a suit without complying with the provisions of order 1 Rule 8 of CPC can be decided only during trial by framing necessary issues to that effect. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be stated that the suit filed by the respondents is not maintainable for non-compliance of Order 1 Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code. Further, the Honourable Judge Mr. Justice P. Sadasivam, as he then was held in 1996-2-L.W. 456 (cited supra) held that the failure of the plaintiffs to obtain permission under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC is only a procedural irregularity and the permission can be obtained even during the pendency of the appeal and in that reported case, permission was granted in the Second Appeal stage. Therefore, in my opinion, plaint cannot be struck off on the ground that the suit was not filed by complying with the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC and in my opinion, the same has to be decided during trial by framing necessary issues. Hence, I do not find any merit in the revision Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.