Practice of Advocates filing affidavit without sworn affidavit by parties deprecated.

The petitioners filed I.A.No.978 of 2003 to implead them as defendants 21 and 22 in O.S.No.293 of 2001 and also filed I.A.No.979 of 2003 to implead them as respondents 21 and 22 in the injunction application in I.A.No.336 of 2001 in O.S.No.293 of 2001. These applications were dismissed by the trial Court. Hence, these two civil revision petitions.

2. The facts in brief are as follows:

(a) Aralvaimozhi (Kurusadi) Devasahayam Mount Oor and Thuya Viagula Annai Church, represented by the Trustee filed O.S.No.293 of 2001 against the Bishop of Kottar, Kottar Diocese and others for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the management and administration of the Aralvaimozhi (Kurusadi) Devasahayam Mount and the properties of Thyua Vaigula Annai Church by the plaintiffs or from disturbing their possession in any manner. The plaintiffs filed I.A.No.336 of 2001 in O.S.No.293 of 2001 seeking for interim injunction. In the meantime, other defendants have been impleaded as defendants 2 to 20.

(b) The injunction application was argued and heard. At that stage, the petitioners herein, claiming themselves as former President of the Oor Committee and former Committee Member of Oor Committee respectively, filed the said two applications in I.A.Nos.978 and 979 of 2003 to implead themselves as defendants 21 and 22 and respondents 21 and 22, both in the suit and in the injunction application respectively, as they are proper and necessary parties.

(c) In the meantime, the Bishop, the first defendant filed the written statement and counter affidavit. The trial Court, before passing orders in the injunction application which was argued at length, heard the said I.As. for impleading the petitioners.

(d) It was contested by the Bishop that the petitioners herein are unnecessary parties and the suit was filed by the plaintiffs in representative capacity and therefore, the applications filed by the petitioners in I.A.Nos.978 and 979 of 2003 as former office bearers of the Oor Committee, being belated, are liable to be dismissed, as there are no merits in the same.

(e) Accepting the contention of the first defendant-Bishop, the said applications have been dismissed by way of common order. Since common order has been passed in the said I.As., the petitioners herein, the proposed defendants 21 and 22, have filed these two civil revision petitions.

3. Mr.Jyothi Mani, learned counsel for the petitioners would mainly contend that the trial Court, without deciding as to whether the petitioners are proper and necessary parties in the suit and the injunction application, rejected the applications merely on extraneous grounds. On the other hand, the trial Court should have allowed the applications filed by the petitioners by impleading them as defendants, as neither the plaintiffs nor the first defendant would be affected and the presence of the petitioners in the suit would facilitate the trial Court to arrive at a proper and appropriate conclusion, thereby avoiding multiplicity of proceedings.

4. Mr.Peppin Fernando, learned counsel appearing for the caveator, the first defendant in the suit, while justifying the impugned order, would submit that the petitioners have come to the Court belatedly to drag on the proceedings, without allowing the trial Court to pass orders in the injunction application earlier filed by the plaintiffs. It is also stated by him that the petitioners' case is in support of the plaintiffs and as such, impleading them as defendants in the suit would be unnecessary.

5. Heard learned counsel for the second respondent also. Both the counsel for the parties would cite several authorities in support of their contentions.

6. Even at the threshold, it has to be stated that the plaintiffs filed the suit in a representative capacity of the Village and the Church, as Trustee, in the year 2001 in O.S.No.293 of 2001 and injunction application was also filed in I.A.No.336 of 2001. When the injunction application was