Where a party does not object to the competence of a person to represent a society in a suit, the party is deemed to have waived the objection.

P. A. CHOUDHARY, J.

( 1 ) THE suit was filed by A. P. Kuruma Sangham represented by its General Secretary Sri Agiri Gopalarao against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,300. 00 representing the arrears of rent and for possession of the suit premises. That suit was contested by the defendant-tenant. One of the contentions raised by the defendant was to deny that the plaintiff was a registered Society. The defendant also contested the legal authority of Sri Agiri Gopalarao to sue. On that the trial court raised the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is a registered society ? 2. Whether A. Gopalarao is entitled to file the suit ?

( 2 ) ON the first issue the plaintiff produced the certificate of registration which the trial Court accepting held that the Society was a registered Society. But the trial court misunderstood the second issue as an independent issue. Accordingly it independently examined the evidence and found that the General Secretary. A Gopalarao was empowered to manage and supervise the day-to-day activities of the Sangham and conduct the meetings, attend to its correspondence, implement the resolutions. Manage all the properties of the society of Sangham. It found the Secretary of the plaintiff-Sangham to be the Chief Executive Officer of the Sangham and that therefore the Secretary was entitled to file the suit under the authority of the plaintiffs constitution. Against that judgment of the trial Court the defendant filed and appeal in the cause title of which he had described the plaintiff respondent as"a. P. Kuruma Sangham situated at Karvan. Hyderabad represented by its General Secretary Sri Agiri Gopalarso s/o Mallaiah, resident of Karvan. Hyderabad. "in the body of his memorandum of grounds. the appellant-defendant had never objected to the competence of the Secretary to represent the Sanghan and sue the defendant on its behalf/ In other words, the description of the plaintiff in the cause title of the defendants memorandum of grounds of appeal was not intended to be formal. From the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant and not denied by the learned counsel for the respondent. I gather that the defendants appeal was taken in the grounds advanced in the arguments. The lower court accordingly heard the appeal on points other then those relating to the competence of Gopalarao to represent the Society and on conclusion reserved its judgment. It posted the case for judgment on 19-4-1979. on that day the learned Judge of his own motion raised the question relating to the competence of Gopalarao. Secretary to represent the society and sue that defendant and posted the matter for arguments the next day I. e. , on 20-4-1979. on 20-4. 1979 he heard the argument and rendered this judgment under appeal four days thereafter.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff attacks this judgment in this Second appeal. Firstly he objects to the procedure followed by the lower court and secondly he objects to the judgment on the basis of the merits in the case. Taking the un-contradicted facts as stated by the appellants counsel I must say that the procedure followed by the appellate Judge is not satisfactory. Courts must be neutral between parties and must appear to be so in our adversary system of hearing. A point given up by the party cannot be the basis for reopening the case unless it is so fundamental and jurisdictional. The question whether the Secretary was authorised was not such a point. However, if the court felt the need to re-open the case on a point never raised by the appellant before it, the minimum that should have been done by the Court was to afford adequate opportunity to the successful party-respondent before it. I regret to say that the Court did not do in this. On the other hand, he reopened the matter on 19-4-1979 and posted the matter on 20-4-1979. This is clearly hurrying up of the hearing of the appeal. Whether it also amounted to burying justice in the case I need not deal. All I say is th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document