Compliance with Order-1 Rule-8 CPC was not necessary as the societies were capable of suing or being sued without taking recourse to the rule. The judgment in the earlier suit was binding on each and every member of Nilachala Saraswata Sangha.

JUDGMENT

S. Pujahari, J. - This defendants are the appellants in both the appeals against the common judgment dated 02.04.2004 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Cuttack in RFA No.5 of 2003 and RFA No.9 of 2003. Both the appeals were filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2002 and 06.01.2003 respectively passed in T.S. No.376 of 1989 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack whereby the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit in part. The Plaintiffs-Appellants herein had preferred RFA No.5 of 2003 whereas the Defendants had preferred RFA No.9 of 2003. The learned 1st Additional District Judge by a common judgment disposed of both the appeals whereby RFA No.5 of 2003 was allowed and RFA No.9 of 2003 was dismissed. Hence, both these second appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The Respondent-Plaintiff No.1 (Nilachal Saraswata Sangha, Puri) known as Kendra Sangha being represented by it's the then Secretary Late Raghunath Pati and Cuttack Saraswata Sangha a Branch of Nilachala Saraswata Sangha, Puri (Plaintiff No.2) being represented by its Secretary Late Anatha Bandhu Pradhan and the President of Kendra Sangha (Plaintiff No.3) jointly filed Title Suit No.376 of 1989 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack claiming the following reliefs:-

'(a) Let it be declared that defendant No.1 has no legal authority or right to sing or issue the Parichaya Patra (Identity Card) as President of the Sakha Sangha, Plaintiff No.2, nor he can do any act or interference in the smooth management and Seva Puja, Nitikantis of the Plaintiff No.2, Sakha Sangha, on his capacity as either the President or the member of the Sakha Sangh, Plaintiff No.2;

(b) Let it be further declared that the defendant No.1 or anybody following him, are authorized to use the rubber stamp, seal of Late Durga Charan Mohanty as Parichalaka of the Sangha in any correspondence with the members of the plaintiff No.1 and Plaintiff No.2, Sangha or in the Parichaya Patra issued to the alleged members and further that the use of the seal/ rubber stamp of late Durga Charan Mohanty is without any authority and not recognizable by plaintiff No.1 or 2;

(c) Let it be further declare that defendant No.1 to 21 or any other persons who have been granted the Parichaya Patra under the signature of defendant No.1 as president with seal of Late parichalaka Durga Charan Mohanty cannot be said to be valid members of either the plaintiff No.1 or plaintiff No.2, Sangha and anything done by the defendant or their followers having the said Parichaya Patra under the signature of defendant No.1 as President should be held to be unauthorized and without the sanction of plaintiff No.1 or plaintiff No.2 and would be treated as illegal interference in the management, seva puja and Nitikantis of the Sangha of Plaintiff No.1 and 2.

(d) Let a decree of permanent injunction be passed against the defendants and their agent and followers, not to do any act or Perform any function or activities relating to the plaintiff No.2 or plaintiff No.1, Sangha, or Sri Sri Thakur and not to interfere in the Niti, daily, weekly and monthly seva puja, monthly Mahila Puja and or annual function of Sri Sri Thakur and not to Collect funds, donations as members of the Sangna, on the basis of the Parichaya Patra granted under the seal of Late Durga Charan Mohanty and signature of defendant No.1, be prevented from issuing any Parichaya Patra in future.

(e) Let a decree of permanent injunction be passed against the defendants not to interfere in daily or weekly seva puja, Nitikantis, monthly prayer of Sri Sri Thakur Bigraha and management of the plaintiff No.2, Sangha situated in schedule A land and not to create any disturbance in any manner over Schedule-A property.

(f) Let any other or further reliefs be granted as deem it and proper;

(g) Let the cost of the suit be declared in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.'

3