IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
V. Tharani - Appellant
Versus
Kanchipuram Retired Police Personnel Welfare Association - Respondent
C.R.P. (PD) No. 4341 of 2024, C.M.P. No. 24158 of 2024
Decided On : 07-11-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the civil revision petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. initial orders and actions taken by the judge. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 3. arguments regarding the nature of the meeting and judicial error. (Para 13 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 24) |
| 4. court's power of superintendence and the maintainability of the revision. (Para 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 5. judicial procedure regarding recalling orders. (Para 31 , 33 , 39) |
| 6. clarification regarding the general body meeting's agenda. (Para 40 , 41) |
| 7. conclusion of the civil revision petition. (Para 42) |
ORDER :
1. This civil revision petition arises against the order of the learned Principal District Munsif at Kanchipuram in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.166 of 2024 dated 30.08.2024.
2. O.S.No.166 of 2024 is a suit filed by the 1st respondent for the following reliefs:
“(i) to grant a permanent injunction against the defendants 1 to 9 and their men or subordinates restraining them from in any way either conducting the General Body Meeting of the Kancheepuram Retired Police Personnel Welfare Association (Regn. No.74/2009) proposed to be held on 01.09.2024 at Kavalar Samuthaya Koodam, Kancheepuram or on subsequent dates at Kavalar Samuthaya Koodam, Kancheepuram and also in any other places;
(ii) to grant a mandatory injunction against the first defendant directing him to hand over the accounts, bank account and other register books of the Kancheepuram Retired Police Personnel Welfare Association (Regn. No.74/2009) to the present elected president and other office bearers of the said society namely the plaintiffs 1 to 3 herein;
(iii) to grant mandatory injunction directing the District Registrar, Kancheepuram, who is the Tenth defendant herein to conduct the election of the plaintiffs' association as per its By laws with the help of Advocate Commissioner to be appointed by this Hon'ble Court for electing the President, Secretary, Treasurer and other office bearers of the plaintiffs association.”
3. The apprehension of the plaintiff is that under the guise of holding a general body meeting on 01.09.2024, the defendants 1 to 9 had proposed to elect the office bearers of the plaintiff association.
4. This suit is a result of a tug of war between one Mr.M.V.Santhakumar and the defendants 1 to 9. The society is the Kanchipuram Retired Police Personnel Welfare Association. It is a society registered under the Society's Registration Act.
5. Pleading that the defendants 1 to 9 are not the members of the association, one Mr.M.V.Santhakumar approached the District Registrar of the Registration in order to resolve the disputes. The District Registrar realising that he does not have the requisite powers to resolve the dispute that had been raised between the parties, by an order dated 20.08.2024, directed the parties to approach the competent Civil Court to work out their rights in accordance with law.
6. After the order dated 20.08.2024, the defendants 1 to 9 issued a notice calling for a general body meeting with the following agendas:

7. Taken aback by this general body meeting notification, the plaintiff approached the Court for the aforesaid reliefs. He moved two applications in I.A.Nos.3 & 4 of 2024. I.A.No.3 of 2024 sought for injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 9 from conducting the general body meeting of the Kanchipuram Retired Police Personnel Welfare Association on 01.09.2024 or on any other subsequent dates at the Kavalar Samudhaya Koodam, Kancheepuram or in any other venue, pending disposal of the suit.
8. I.A.No.4 of 2024 sought for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to assist the District Registrar, the 10th defendant to conduct the election for the plaintiff association.
9. The suit as well as the applications came to be filed on30.08.2024 i.e. two days before holding of the general body meeting. The hearing date in the suit was fixed as 30.09.2024.
10. The learned Judge took up the application for injunction in I.A.No.3 of 2024 and passed the following order:
“Heard th
Judicial orders must maintain consistency; once signed by a judge, an order cannot be rescinded without legitimate reasons, ensuring lawful procedural conduct in civil matters.
The right to continue a suit can survive the death of a party if the cause of action is common to multiple parties, and the addition of new parties under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC is permissible to avoi....
A trial court can take note of subsequent developments and dismiss a suit as infructuous if the cause of action has ceased to exist.
A revision petition challenging an interim injunction is maintainable despite pending decisions, and an AGM resolution related to the petitioner should be deferred until the injunction application is....
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Scope of Judicial review/Interference under Article 227 - High Court can interfere under Article 227 of Constitution in cases of erroneous assumption or ac....
[The court established that consent terms in electoral disputes are binding and that the rejection of nominations must be based on clear and consistent grounds, emphasizing the rights of members in t....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.