High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 07 CAL CK 0044

Sk. Wasim Akram vs Ghulam Ashraf And Ors.

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 13 July 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Moushumi Bhattacharya, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
GA No. 2/2021 In Civil Suit No. 95 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

32 paragraphs · 716 words

This is an application of the father of an aspiring footballer who wished to play football for the Mohammedan Sporting Club, one of the well-known

football clubs in the city. The defendants in the suit are the present officer-bearers of the Club and the plaintiff is a life-member and the erstwhile

Secretary of the said Club.

According to learned counsel appearing for the applicant, the applicant parted with a sum of Rs.5 lakhs and gave it to the plaintiff when the plaintiff

was an office-bearer of the Club for giving an opportunity to the applicant’s son to play football for the Club. Counsel submits that various

attempts were subsequently made to recover the money from the plaintiff and that the applicant’s son had to miss out of an opportunity to play for

a Club in Portugal due to lack of funds. Counsel submits that the applicant is vitally interested in the outcome of the suit as career of the

applicant’s son would depend on the plaintiff returning as an office-bearer of the Club.

Learned Counsel appearing for the defendants, who are the present office bearers of the Club, objects to the applicant being made a party to the suit

on the ground that the applicant’s son cannot be given a chance to play for the Club in lieu of the money given to the plaintiff. Counsel submits

that several complaints of a similar nature have been received from other parties against the plaintiff and disciplinary proceedings are pending against

the plaintiff.

Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff relies on Order I Rule 8 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to urge that a party can only be added as a

party to a suit if that party has an interest in the outcome of the suit. Counsel submits that the applicant can file a suit for recovery of the money paid

to the plaintiff. It is submitted that the plaintiff was the Secretary of the Club from July, 2020 to January, 2021 while the alleged loss of opportunity to

play for a club in Portugal was in October, 2019. It is submitted that the scope of the suit cannot be enlarged by adding the applicant as a party to the

suit.

Upon hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, it appears that the prayers in the plaint were for appointment of an Administrator for holding

free and fair elections for electing the Executive Committee of the Club. The interim relief sought in GA No.1 of 2021 was on similar lines and for an

injunction restraining the respondents from operating the bank account of the Club. The prayers in the plaint as well as in the application for interim

relief show that the prayer of the plaintiff was for free and fair elections for electing the Executive Committee who would manage the affairs of the

Club. The grievance of the applicant in the present case relates to the alleged misconduct on the part of the plaintiff in receiving money from the

applicant in exchange of allowing the applicant’s son to play for the Club. The applicant is not a member of the Club and hence cannot have any

interest in the elections of the Club or the possible outcome of the elections. There is no connection between holding of the elections and a favourable

decision by the office bearers in the matter of the applicant’s son. The stand taken on behalf of the applicant is entirely speculative since the

application does not disclose any basis for the applicant being interested in the outcome of the suit or by the elections even if the plaintiff were to

return as the Secretary of the Club. In any event, holding free and fair elections cannot automatically result in the plaintiff being reinstated as an office

bearer of the Club.

There is thus no ground disclosed in the petition for adding the applicant as a party to the suit. The applicant can avail of an appropriate legal recourse

for recovery of the money given to the plaintiff as alleged in these proceedings.

GA 2 of 2021 is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. Leave is given to the plaintiff’s advocate to file the vakalatnama in the

department. The affidavit-of-service in GA No.1 of 2021 is taken on record.