SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 2312

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : J. Ram
For the Respondents: D. Murthy, R. Siddharth

Judicial orders must maintain consistency; once signed by a judge, an order cannot be rescinded without legitimate reasons, ensuring lawful procedural conduct in civil matters.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 - The High Court addresses procedural impropriety after the learned Judge struck off an original order for notice and issued a status-quo order without proper basis - High Court affirms the need for uniformity in judicial orders and the principle that once an order is signed, it cannot be rescinded without proper justification - The suit arises from a dispute over the conduct of a General Body Meeting within a registered society. (Paras 1-2, 14, 24, 33)

(B) Procedural Law - The scope of supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 ensures adherence to legal procedure and empowers the Court to intervene in instances where lower courts deviate from established practices, particularly in interim orders. (Paras 25-28)

Facts of the case:
The civil revision petition concerns the learned Judge's contradictory orders regarding a planned General Body Meeting of a society, leading to disputes over the validity of the orders issued and the authority of the defendants to act.

Findings of Court:
The High Court concluded that the learned Judge had acted outside her jurisdiction by altering the original order without sufficient grounds, necessitating intervention.

Issues: The core issues were whether the learned Judge had the authority to strike off the initial order and the implications of procedural errors in interim judicial orders.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that once an order is formally signed, it cannot be arbitrarily overturned, underscoring the necessity for consistent judicial processes to maintain public confidence.

Result: The civil revision petition is allowed, and the previous order is set aside.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top