The civil revision petitioner/petitioner has filed the C.R.P (PD) MD. No. 457 of 2009 as against the order dated 8.12.2008 in I.A. No. 1351 of 2008 in I.A. No. 630 of 2008 in O.S. No. 351 of 2008 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli, in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10(2) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to implead him as the second respondent/second defendant in I.A. No. 630 of 2008 in O.S. No. 351 of 2008.

2. To avoid an avoidable delay, this Court dispenses with the issuance of notice to the third respondent in the interest of justice.

3. The petitioner/proposed defendant has filed the C.R.P. (PD) MD. No. 458 of 2009 as against the order dated 8.12.2008 in I.A. No. 1352 of 2008 in O.S. No. 351 of 2008 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli, in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10(2) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to implead him as the second defendant in O.S. No. 351 of 2008.

4. The trial Court while passing orders in I.A. Nos. 1351 of 2008 and 1352 of 2008, has inter alia opined that the petitioner is neither necessary party nor a proper party to the suit and resultantly, dismissed the said applications without costs.

5. Aggrieved against the orders so passed by the trial Court in I.A. Nos. 1351 of 2008 and 1352 of 2008, the civil revision petitioner has projected the two civil revision petitions before this Court.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the revision petitioner has filed I.A. No. 1352 of 2008 to implead him as the second defendant in the suit and also filed I.A. No. 1351 of 2008 to implead him as a party in the injunction application in I.A. No. 630 of 2008 in O.S. No. 351 of 2008, whereby the respondents 1 and 2 sought to stall the appointments and transfers of teaching and non-teaching staffs of the educational institutions of Diocese and that the petitioner has been elected as a member of the Diocese of Tirunelveli and that he is the Secretary of the Standing Committee on higher education of the Diocesan institutions which deal with the appointments and transfers of teaching and non-teaching staffs, but the trial Court has passed a non-speaking order without application of mind and that the trial Court has not taken note of the fact that no election has been set aside and that the persons elected have been competent to represent their interest and that since the revision petitioner is an aggrieved individual, he is a necessary and proper party to the suit and therefore, he prays for allowing the present civil revision petitions to prevent aberration of justice.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the petitioner is an elected office bearer and that he is a necessary party both in injunction application as well as in the suit and if an injunction order is passed, then certainly it will affect him in the administration and in support of his contention, he relies on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in AIR 2005 SC 592 : (2005) 4 SCC 741 at page 604, wherein it is held as follows:

"84. On 11.10.2004, we had, after hearing the counsel for the parties observed that if a situation arises this Court would go into the validity of the election of the office-bearers of the Board held in the meeting dated 29.9.2004, but, as indicated hereinbefore, we did so under a mistaken belief that the Board would be represented by the new office-bearers and, thus, all parties would be before us. However, it now stands admitted that the office-bearers either in their personal capacity or official capacity are not before us. They may have notice of the pendency of this proceeding. They may be sitting on the fence and watching the proceedings of this Court. But, unless they are made parties in these proceedings, we would not be in a position to entertain the dispute as regard validity of the meeting of 29.9.2004