His Holiness Srivan Satagopa Sri Vedantha Desika Yathindra Mahadesikan, Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple, Srirangam vs The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Ranganathaswamy Devasthanam, Srirangam

We have heard Learned Counsel on both side. Special leave granted. The plaintiff-appellant instituted a suit in the Court of the Sub Judge, Tiruchirapalli, u/s 70 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endownments Act, 1959 (Act 22 of 1959) for setting aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Endowments. The Commissioner as well as the Executive Officer of Sri Ranganathaswami Devasthanam, Srirangam, who were parties to the suit filed separate written statements resisting the suit on various grounds. The Commissioner of Endowments raised an additional plea that the suit was bad for want of notice u/s 80, Code of Civil Procedure. That plea, however, was not amongst the pleas urged by the Executive Officer. The trial court took up the issue as to the maintainability of the suit for want of notice u/s 80, CPC as a preliminary issue and held and answered it against the appellant. The suit was, accordingly, dismissed.

In the appellant's appeal before the High Court, the learned single Judge was persuaded to the view that the suit was a statutory suit where the impleadment of the Commissioner did not detract from the fact that the order made by him was in a quasi judicial capacity and that accordingly he could not be termed a public officer purporting to act in his official capacity within the meaning of Section 80, CPC Learned single Judge, accordingly, allowed the appeal, reversed the finding of the trial court on the preliminary issue and remitted the suit for a fresh disposal on the merits.

Against this order of the learned single Judge, the Commissioner, who had raised the plea of want of notice u/s 80, CPC did not prefer any appeal of his own. But, the Executive Officer, who had not raised this plea, alone brought up an appeal before the Division Bench which took the view that a notice u/s 80, CPC was mandatory even in such a context, that such notice could not also be waived, and accordingly reversed the order of the single Judge and restored that of the trial judge. The appellant has come up in appeal.

The appellant's contention that having regard to the nature of the suit and the capacity and the context in which public officers had been impleaded, Section 80, CPC was not attracted, is eminently arguable. But, we think we should decline to examine that contention in this case. Having regard to the particular facts and circumstances of this case ends of justice would be met by directing the trial court to proceed with the suit on the merits without reference to the bar u/s 80, Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Judgment of the Division Bench set aside; the operative part of the order of the learned Single Judge restored (without a pronouncement on the merits) and the trial Court directed to proceed and dispose of the suit on the basis of the findings to be recorded on the other issues.