IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that seeking relief outside the purview of Section 25(1) is permissible when it is inextricably interwoven with the enumerated reliefs, and the amendment to incorporate subsequent events is allowed when necessary for determining the real controversy in issue.

Two questions surface for consideration in this Original Petition. The first question -in the context of Section 25 of the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 ('Act 12 of 1955', for short) – is whether it is permissible to seek a relief, which is not specifically recognised in Section 25 of the Act? The second issue is whether an amendment to incorporate subsequent events, as also, to seek a relief on that basis, can be allowed or not.

2. The factual backdrop is as follows:

Sree Narayana Health Care Society is one registered under Act 12 of 1955, having 241 members. As many as 33 out of them preferred Ext.P1 Original Petition, O.P.(Society) No.122/2021, under Act 12 of 1955, for framing a scheme for the better and efficient management of the 1st respondent Society and also for a direction to conduct election to the fresh Governing body of the 1st respondent Society, in accordance with the scheme so framed, through the process of court. Along with the Original Petition, I.A.No.1/2021 was filed seeking a temporary injunction restraining the respondents in the Original Petition, inter alia from inducting new members of the Society. An ex-parte ad interim order of injunction was granted as sought for. The same was, however, modified by Ext.P3 order, as per which, the 1st respondent Society was allowed to admit provisionally ordinary members, however, subject to the condition that such members will not have any right to participate in the election and that they will not have any vested right to continue as members, if the Original Petition is ultimately allowed. I.A.No.1/2021 was finally heard and Ext.P4 order was passed dismissing the same, holding that a restraint on admitting new members would affect the income of the Society and thereby, the proper functioning of its institutions.

3. Ext.P4 was subjected to challenge before this Court in F.A.O No.112/2022, wherein Ext.P4 was set aside, vide Ext.P5 judgment. An undertaking given by the contesting respondents that the 1st respondent will not admit any new member in future till the disposal of the suit was recorded and F.A.O was accordingly disposed of. However, during the interregnum between the date of Ext.P4 order (vacating the interim order and dismissing I.A. No.1/2021) and the date of Ext.P5 order, as many as, 51 new members were inducted. Seeking clarification of their status, a review petition was filed in Ext.P5 judgment vide R.P.No.1264/2022. The same was, however, disposed of stating that Ext.P3 modified order of the Additional District Court got merged with Ext.P4 order and, therefore, the status of the said 51 persons is not required to be clarified. In such circumstances, the petitioners herein preferred Ext.P7 application for amendment of the plaint to incorporate pleadings to the effect that the persons, who were inducted as ordinary members of the 1st respondent Society, provisionally, during the pendency of the Original Petition, are not validly inducted members and that they are not conferred with any vested right or privilege as members of the Society. A relief to that effect was also sought for in the plaint. A further declaration was also sought for that the election to the Governing body of the 1st respondent Society held on 12.01.2020 is not lawful and that executive committee and the office bearers thus elected, are not empowered to govern and administer the affairs of the respondent Society. Exts.P8 to P13 are the counter affidavits preferred by the various respondents to Ext.P7 amendment application.

4. By Ext.P14 order dated 04.03.2023, the amendment sought for vide Ext.P7 was dismissed, on the solitary ground that the reliefs sought to be incorporated are outside the purview of Section 25 of Act 12 of 1955 and that the court has no jurisdiction or power to grant any relief, other than those specified/enumerated in clauses (a) to (c) to Section 25(1). The learned District Judge also found that the petitione