S. No. 59 Regular List

ORDER

1. The petitioners, who are defendants in the civil suit titled Mohammad Hussain v. Mohd. Hanifa and Others, have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashment of orders dated 23.03.2022, 09.06.2022, 25.06.2022 and 19.09.2022 passed by the Trial Court. The principal grievance of the petitioners is that the impugned orders suffer from non-application of mind and have been passed by adopting a procedure not sanctioned by law. It is contended that the suit, as originally instituted, was not maintainable inasmuch as the plaintiff could not have sought a decree of declaration and injunction in respect of the suit land when his entitlement thereto was specifically disputed by the defendants. It is further urged that, having regard to the nature of the controversy and the interest of the villagers in the suit property, the plaintiff could not have instituted the suit in his individual capacity without obtaining leave of the Court under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Trial Court committed a manifest error in allowing the applications moved by the plaintiff for amendment of the cause title and the plaint, notwithstanding the preliminary objections raised by the defendants regarding the maintainability of the suit, non-joinder of necessary parties and failure to institute the proceedings in a representative capacity. It is also contended that, once an order directing the parties to maintain status quo had already been passed, the Trial Court could not have issued a further direction of similar nature without appropriately modifying or varying its earlier order.

3. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition may be noticed briefly. The plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit for declaration and injunction against five defendants, asserting that he was a resident of village Chutuk and, as such, entitled to a share in the village land comprising Survey Nos. 3986, 3987, 3988, 3989, 3994 and 3996. According to the plaintiff, the aforesaid land stood mutated in favour of the villagers of village Chutuk, who had nominated defendants 1 to 5 as members of a committee entrusted with the distribution of the land amongst the eligible villagers. The grievance projected in the plaint was that, despite being a resident of the village, the plaintiff had been excluded from the list of beneficiaries and denied his legitimate share in the distribution of the land.

4. Upon service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement, contesting the claim of the plaintiff primarily on the ground that he was not a resident of village Chutuk but belonged to village Minji and, therefore, had no entitlement to any share in the suit land. The defendants also raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the suit, alleging that the same was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, that the plaintiff had failed to obtain leave of the Court to institute the suit in a representative capacity, and that the plaint disclosed no cause of action. It was further alleged that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts concerning his actual place of residence.

5. During the pendency of the suit, the Trial Court, vide order dated 14.09.2021, directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the suit property. Subsequently, the plaintiff moved an application under Order I Rule 8 CPC, stating that although the suit had initially been instituted against the five persons allegedly nominated as members of the Committee, the relief claimed was directed against the distribution of land being undertaken on behalf of the villagers at large. It was asserted that the defendants, being persons entrusted with the distribution of the village land, were acting in a representative capacity on behalf of the