ORDER:-The plaintiff in O.S. No. 4087 of 1969 on the file of the Fourth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is the petitioner in this revision. The respondents herein are the defendants in that suit. The plaintiff is Sri Pushpagiri Mutt. Cuddappah, Cuddappah District, Andhra Pradesh. From a perusal of the records in the Court below, certain essential features of the case do emerge out. An Executive Officer was appointed for the plaintiff-Mutt by the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration), Andhra Pradesh, in pursuance of a scheme framed therefor. The plaintiff-Mutt filed the suit for a declaration of title regarding the property at No. 20, Ekambareswarar Agraharam, Park Town, Madras, and for possession of the said property. There is no gainsaying that a Mutt, like an idol is a juridical person and is capable of acquiring, holding and vindicating legal rights through the medium of some human agency, which is ordinarily the agency of the person in charge of its affairs. It is beyond doubt that "Sri Pushpagiri Mutt", is the plaintiff in the suit. However, because an Executive Officer was appointed and was functioning for the plaintiff-Mutt, at the relevant times, the plaintiff-Mutt was described in the pleadings as follows:

"The Executive Officer of Sri Pushpagiri Mutt, Cuddappah, Cuddappah District". This may not be a proper description of the plaintiff-Mutt. The name or designation of the person representing the plaintiff-Mutt is only secondary. However, the suit on contest by the defendants, on merits was proceeded with and while it was part-heard was dismissed for default on 4th October, 1971. The application, I.A. No. 17709 of 1971, for restoration was also dismissed by the Fourth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The plaintiff-Mutt filed an appeal, C.M.A. No. 65 of 1972 against the orders an I.A. No. 17709 of 1971, and the same cause title in the suit and in the subsequent proceedings in the suit was adopted in filing the said appeal, C.M.A. No. 65 of 1972, which was heard and disposed of by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, by Judgment and decree dated 16th August, 1974."

2. During the pendencyof the appeal, C.M.A. No. 65 of 1972, the plaintiff-Mutt preferred C.M.P. No. 1013 of 1973 for permission to amend the cause title by removing the present cause title and inserting the new cause title as:

"Sri Vidya Nrusimha Bharathy Swamy Varu, Peedathipathy, Sri Pushpagiri Mutt, Cuddappah, represented by its Manager.,"

in the plaint as well as in the appeal memorandum. The provocation for this move was found in certain events, which occurred subsequent to the filing of the suit. It was stated that according to the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966, the scheme framed earlier, became inoperative, and the person to represent the plaintiff-Mutt became the Peedathipathy himself even before the filing of the said appeal. As noted earlier, the cause title found in the proceedings was adopted in the appeal. The prayer for amendment in C.M.P. No. 1013 of 1973 itself was not properly couched. Once it is remembered that it is "Sri Pushpagiri Mutt" which had and has a "cause" to be agitated and vindicate certain legal rights, its representation through one or other human agency cannot be of much significance, and if it is described wrongly, it is a case of misdescription of parties, which can be corrected by the Court at any time. To complete the narration of events, C.M.P. No. 1013 of 1973 in C M.A. No. 65 of 1972, was dismissed by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, on 15th July, 1974. A revision, C.R.P. No. 295 of 1976, was preferred to this Court as against the order in C.M.P. No. 1013 of 1973 and the said revision has been dismissed by this Court on 11th July, 1977, for not taking steps to serve the respondents therein.

3. The Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, has dismissed C.M.A. No. 65 of 1972 on the reasoning

Click Here to Read the rest of this document