R. Veena vs Thimmappa

A.V. Chandrashekara, J.—Sri. V.B. Siddaramaiah, the learned counsel for the petitioner is present. Learned counsel for the respondents is absent.

The certified copy of the order sheet maintained in O.S. 489/2013 pending on the file of Court of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Tumkur is produced, perused the same.

The present petition is filed challenging the order dated 5.9.2013 passed on I.A.VI by the Trial Court. The writ petitioner v/as the applicant in the said suit and had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC vide I.A.VI before the Trial Court with a request to implead her as an additional defendant to the suit. The main ground pleaded before the Trial Court for impleadment was on the basis of the subsequent election held to the executive committee dated 24.5.2013 based on the interim order dated 23.5.2013 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Tumkur.

Election to the Executive Body, Veena Sharada Educational Society, Batwadi, Tumkur was held on 24.5.2013 based on the interim order passed on 23.5.2013 in O.S. 489/2013. Applicant, R. Veena is elected as Secretary of the Society and she has taken over the charge. This aspect of the matter has not been disputed by the parties before the Trial Court and this is evident from the impugned order dated 5.9.2013. The learned Judge has chosen to dismiss the application mainly on the ground that Thimmapa has not sought relief against the present applicant R. Veena.

The decision of the Hon''ble Delhi High Court in the case of Satish Chand Gupta Vs. Sarvesh Chand Gupta and Others, has been referred to in the impugned order. What is reiterated in the said decision is as follows:

"The object of Order 1 Rule 10(2) is that the real dispute raised in the suits should be decided in the presence of all the parties interested in the suit. It is not limited to questions which are involved in the between the parties originally impleaded."

The said decision referred by the counsel for the applicant before the Trial Court has been distinguished on facts holding that facts of Satish Chand Gupta''s case are distinguishable vis-�-vis facts of the present case. This Court is unable to accept the same. The applicant is elected as a responsible Secretary of the Society in an election held on 24.5.2013 based on the interim order passed by the Trial Court on 23.5.2013. The applicant has been managing the affairs of the Society as a responsible Secretary and she has a say in the matter. Anyhow the trial court has observed that the election to be held is subject to the final outcome of the suit

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and applicant being elected as a Secretary in the regular election held on 24.5.2013 to the Executive Body of the Society on the basis of interim order dated 23.5.201 passed by the Trial Court, she is a necessary party to the suit and the entire lis has to be determined in her presence. The trial court has not taken into consideration this important subsequent event.

The learned Trial Judge has not adopted right approach to the real state of affairs. Hence, the applicant has to be brought on record by allowing I.A.VI filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC. Though, plaintiff is the master of suit, the applicant has acquired substantial right having been elected as Secretary of the Society pursuant to valid election held on 24.5.2013 on the basis of the impugned order dated 23.5.2013. Hence, the writ petition is to be allowed by allowing I.A.VI filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 5.9.2013 passed by the Trial Court in O.S. 489/2013 on I.A.VI is set aside by allowing I.A.VI. The applicant is ordered to be brought on record as additional defendant in O.S. 489/2013.

There is no order as to costs.