IMPORTANT POINTS
(i) It is well settled law that review proceedings are to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of C.P.C.
(ii) There are definite limits to the power of review.
(iii) Review Petition can be filed only by parties to the lis in which the order sought to be reviewed has been passed. It cannot be preferred by a third party.
(iv) Even if a third party is affected by a litigation, intervention could not be permissible by way of review petition at a post decisional stage.
(v). Petitioner being a stranger to the lis is not bound by the order passed in the Civil Revision Petition.

ORDER :

The petitioner (Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam, Kollam) is not a party in C.R.P.No.219/2016 on the file of this Court. The petitioner has filed this application for leave to file a review petition in C.R.P.No.219/2016 dated 22.11.2018.

2. The civil revision petition was filed against the order dated 10.3.2016 in LA.No.1212/2016 filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in O.S.No.1569/2015 of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam. The learned Munsiff allowed the said I.A. by order dated 10.3.2016 and referred the parties for arbitration which was challenged in revision. By order dated 22.11.2018, this Court set aside the impugned order holding that the application filed under Section 8 of the Act is not maintainable.

3. This Court considered the question as to whether the existence of an arbitration agreement as defined under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act is a condition precedent for exercise of power to appoint an Arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal under Section 11 of the Act. Considering the facts and circumstances involved, this Court followed the dictum laid down in Vimal Kishor Shah & ors. v. Jayesh Dinesh Shah & Ors. [(2016) 8 SCC 788] and held that in the absence of an arbitration agreement or mutual consent as defined under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act, the rules of the SNDP Yogam, including Rule 71, do not satisfy the requirement of Section 2(1)(b) and 2(1)(h) read with Section 7 of the Act. This Court further held that the rule cannot be construed as an Arbitration Agreement within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.A.N.Rajan Babu contended that the bylaw of SNDP Yogam is challenged in the CRP without the Junction of SNDP Yogam as a party to the suit. It is contended that SNDP Yogam is a non-trading company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, now replaced by the Indian Companies Act, 2013. Section 10 of the Companies Act provides that the provisions contained in the memorandum and articles of association of a company shall be binding on the company and each of the members thereof. Thus, contents of the articles of association shall be observed by the members and the company as if an agreement signed by and between them, it has been submitted. The plaintiffs in the suit are members of the SNDP Yogam and thus Rule 71 is binding on plaintiffs also. Thus, it is argued that Section 10 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 71 will satisfy the requirement of Section 2(1)(b) and 2(1)(h) read with Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Hence the petitioner has filed this petition to grant leave to file the Review Petition in exercise of the powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the order passed by this Court in the C.R.P. is, though expressly against the party respondents, in effect and by implication, the order is made against the petitioner. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition is maintainable before this Court.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 1 to 18 Sri S.Sreekumar, by way of preliminary objection submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to file a review petition before this Court as they were not parties to the proceedings in the suit or in the review petition. Therefore, the learned Sr.Counsel submitted that the application for leave to review may be dismissed in limine as not maintainable, without going into the merits or otherwise of the review petition submitted along with the application for leave to review. According to the learned Sr.Counsel a review petition can be filed only by a party to the suit in which the order sought to be reviewed has been passed and it cannot be filed by a third party. Hence it is contended that the petitioners are debarred from seeking review of an order in which they are not parties to the litigation.

6. Heard Sri. A.N.Ra