A suit involving non-members of a society and discrepancies in representation is not valid. Courts must adhere to statutory provisions and may appoint an administrator to manage proceedings until issues are resolved.

ORDER :

G.R. Swaminathan, J.

Heard both sides.

2. The case on hand pertains to the affairs of the Latin Catholic Fishermen Educational Society. It is a society registered under Tamil Societies Registration Act, 1975. One Leenus and A.Xavier filed O.S.No.183 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Eraniel seeking declaration that the election of the office bearers of the society in the general body meeting held on 17.09.2021 is null and void. Permanent injunction was sought against the official defendants from ratifying the said meeting. Interestingly, some unusual features are evident on the very face of it. Both the plaintiffs namely Leenus and Xavier were admittedly not the members of the society. The persons shown as defendants were not the ones who were elected in the general body meeting held on 17.09.2011. Neither Rev.Fr.Joseph Justus nor Rev.Fr.M.Stephen were competent to represent the society from the year 2011 onwards. They were erstwhile office bearers. It is well settled that tenure of any elected committee is 3 years as per Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. The suit ought to have been dismissed as infructuous by the year 2014 if it did not warrant dismissal earlier on the ground of locus standi. Be that as it may, in 2021, the court below appears to have invoked Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The impugned orders read that the members of the society appeared before the court on 23.04.2021 and that it was decided to conduct a fresh election. A counsel by name Mr.John Xavier was mandated to issue notice to the counsel on either side as well as the members of the society and conduct election on 18.09.2021. The court below recorded that on 18.09.2021, some 10 persons were elected as office bearers of the society. O.S.No.183 of 2011 was thus disposed of on 21.09.2021 by recording the developments. The judgment reads that Leenus (first plaintiff) was examined as P.W.1. It now turns out that Leenus had passed away on 09.08.2020 itself. When one of the plaintiffs had passed away, the said fact ought to have been recorded and his legal heirs should have been brought on record. The suit itself was disposed of on the basis of compromise. Compromise can be effected only between the concerned parties to the lis. It has already been noted that the plaintiffs were non-members. They could not have been parties to any compromise involving the affairs of the registered society. That apart, the defendants shown in the cause title were not competent to represent the society. It appears that there is an internal dispute regarding the management of the society. Therefore, Form 7 ought to have been called for. It is seen that the forms filed by both the groups had not been accepted for filing by the District Registrar of the Societies.

3. I fail to understand as to how Rev.Fr. Stephen could have represented the society. This was not a matter in which Section 89 of C.P.C could have been invoked at all. In fact, in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd., Vs. Cherian Varkey [ 2010 (8) SCC 24 ], it was held that the stage at which the court should explore whether the matter should be referred to the ADR method even after the pleadings are completed and after framing the issues. It was also held that the representative suits which involved the interest of number of persons who are not before the Court are normally not considered to be suitable for ADR methods having regard to their nature. The aforesaid decision squarely applies to the case on hand.

4. The impugned decree has to be faulted primarily on the ground that it is in the name of a dead person. It is not known if all the members of the