Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
Inbaraj and another
Versus
Kalunguvilai CMS Sudhanga Suvisesa Sabai, through its President, Rajiah Nadar and others
C.R.P. (P.D.) No.2259 of 2002
Decided On : 20-10-2003
O.1 , Rule 8, C.P.C. - Representative Suit - - Summary of Acts and Sections: O.1 , Rule 8, C.P.C. - The judgment discusses the application filed under O.1 , Rule 8, C.P.C. seeking permission to continue the suit in Representative capacity. The court analyzes the conditions necessary to bring a suit within the Rule, the essential requirements ofO.1 , Rule 8, C.P.C., and the fundamental alteration of the character of the suit. The court emphasizes the need for numerous parties with the same interest, permission of the court, and notice of suit. It highlights the lack of specific averments and the failure to satisfy the prerequisites ofO.1 , Rule 8, C.P.C., ultimately leading to the dismissal of the application.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, as President of the Sabai, filed a suit against the appointment of the Headmaster of a school without necessary approval. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff sought permission to continue the suit in Representative capacity, which was granted by the trial court but challenged by the defendants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish the necessary conditions for a representative suit underO.1 , Rule 8, C.P.C. It emphasized the lack of specific averments and the failure to satisfy the prerequisites ofO.1 , Rule 8, C.P.C., ultimately leading to the dismissal of the application.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court was right in permitting the plaintiff to convert the suit into one filed under representative capacity underO.1 , Rule 8, C.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the essential requirements ofO.1 , Rule 8, C.P.C., for a representative suit, emphasizing the need for numerous parties with the same interest, permission of the court, and notice of suit. It concluded that the application to continue the suit in representative capacity was rightly dismissed.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order granting permission to continue the suit in a representative capacity, emphasizing the erroneous exercise of jurisdiction and conscious disregard of the procedure to be followed underO.1 , Rule 8, C.P.C.
This revision is directed against the order of District Munsif, Sattankulam in I.A.No.87 of 2002 in O.S.No.33 of 2001 (dated 18.4.2002) allowing the Application underO.1 , Rule 8, C.P.C., permitting first respondent/plaintiff to continue the suit in Representative capacity for and on behalf of Kalunguvilai CMS Sudhanga Suvisesha Sabai.
2. The revision arises on the following facts: Plaintiff is the President of Kalunguvilai CMS Suthanga Suvisesha Sabai (for short hereinafter referred to as “plaintiff Sabai”. Plaintiff is authorised to act on behalf of the plaintiff Sabai. Plaintiff Sabai was constituted for the purpose of imparting education for minority people and establishing schools. Plaintiff Sabai has established Evangelical Primary School at Kalunguvilai. First defendant was appointed as Correspondent of the said School by Plaintiff Sabai. As per Bye-laws of the Sabai, the Correspondent is entitled to appoint or promote anyone with approval of Sabai for proper administration of the School.
3. Any appointment made by the Correspondent is to be approved by the Executive Committee of the Sabai. One Natarajan was working as Headmaster of the school from 1.1.1997. While so, without obtaining any approval from the Executive Committee of the Plaintiff Sabai, D-1 has appointed D-2 - Koilpitchai Yesuvadian as the Headmaster of the said School by the order dated 26.2.2001. D-1 has absolutely no right to appoint D-2 as the Headmaster of the School without obtaining necessary approval from the Executive Committee. The action of D-1 is illegal and arbitrary. Plaintiff-President of the Sabai has issued registered notice on 20.2.2001 calling upon D-1 to withdraw the Order of Appointment and not to take any further action, without giving necessary approval from the Executive Committee of the Plaintiff Sabai. Notice was also sent to D-3 -Assistant Educational Officer at Sattankulam. Since the action of D-1 in appointing D-2 as Headmaster of CMS Evangelical Primary School is illegal and void, Plaintiff has filed the suit for declaring the Order of Appointment of D-2 as the Headmaster of the School as illegal and void and also for Permanent Injunction restraining D-1 from proceeding any further.
4. Defendants 1 and 2 have filed common written statement contending that CMS Evangelical Primary School is a Minority Institution as declared in O.S.No.4533 of 1997 on the file of City Civil Court, Madras. The said School is established and managed by the Christians of Kalunguvilai. The Middle School was upgraded as High School in the year 1994, which was approved by the Educational Department. CMS Evangelical Primary School is an Aided School with four teachers working, viz., D-2-Koilpitchai Yesuvadian, Y.Prema, K.Natarajan and one Premalatha. D-2 joined duty on 9.6.1969 and is the Senior Most among the teachers. D-2 is a qualified M.A., M.Ed., having experience of 31 years. The teacher namely, K.Natarajan, who is working from 1.3.1987 was promoted as Headmaster of the School from 1.1.1997 by the previous Management and Correspondent namely, D.Solomon. The Education Department did not approve the promotion of Natarajan. Further, the Education Department also asked D-1, who is the present Correspondent, to promote the qualified Senior Most Teacher as the Headmaster of the said school. The Senior most hand, viz., D-2 applied to D-1 on 15.2.2001 to promote him as the Headmaster of the School and D2 was promoted as Headmaster on 26.2.2001. The said Natarajan also handed over charges to D-2 on 1.3.2001. Order passed by D-1 on 26.2.2001 upgrading D-2 as the Headmaster of the school is valid and is in accordance with the Rules and Proceedings of Tamil Nadu Primary Education Department. Absolutely, there is no irregularity in upgrading D-2 as the Headmaster of the School and the suit filed by the plaintiff is without valid cause and is unsustainable.
5. While the Suit is pending, Plaintiff Rajaiah Nadar had filed I.A.No.87 of 2002 underO.1 , R
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
