A declaration to challenge an election within a society must involve all affected members, emphasizing the need for proper representation in legal proceedings.

J U D G M E N T

Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“To set aside Exhibit P4 order dated 28.7.2009 and allow I.A.No.5563/2009 in O.S.No.1558/2006 on the file of the 2nd Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram for the ends of justice.”

2. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1558 of 2006 on the file of the 2nd Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Suit is one for declaration impeaching the authority of the defendants/respondents 1 to 3 to administer the first and second plaintiffs – institutions, and for other reliefs. Resisting the suit claim the respondents filed a written statement challenging even the locus standi of the third petitioner/third plaintiff, who claimed to be the Secretary of the first plaintiff – Society. Ext.P1 is the copy of the plaint and Ext.P2, copy of the written statement. Among other contentions the respondents/defendants had contended that an election was conducted in the first plaintiff – Society, a week prior to the institution of the suit and office bearers were duly elected in such election. Plaintiffs moved an application to amend the plaint seeking an additional relief of declaration in the suit that election, if any, conducted, as contended by the defendants in their written statement, is illegal and not binding on the Society and other plaintiffs. Ext.P3 is the copy of the application for amendment, to which no objections were raised by the respondents/defendants. Learned Munsiff, after hearing both sides, dismissed that Ext.P3 amendment application vide Ext.P4 order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. I heard the learned counsel on both sides.

3. In the nature of the contentions raised in the suit and the issues arising for adjudication the proposed amendment is essential for a fair and proper disposal of the suit, is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs in the suit. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants submitted that the challenge against Ext.P4 order is meritless as the defendants have filed their written statement as early in October, 2006, and as the suit having not been filed in a representative capacity the relief canvassed by way of amendment cannot be entertained. Perusing Ext.P4 order challenged in the writ petition with reference to other exhibits tendered in the writ petition and the submissions made by the counsel on both sides, I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Munsiff. Plaintiffs have sought for a declaration to set aside an election purported to have been conducted in the first plaintiff - Society, which is registered as per the provisions of the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 (Act XII of 1955). Plaintiffs have not filed the suit in a representative capacity, so much so, any declaration impeaching the election without the juncture of all members of the Society, whose interests are affected by the decision likely to be passed, is not permissible and on that solitary ground, without going into the case canvassed by the parties, I find the challenge against the order dismissing the amendment application has to fail.

Writ petition lacks merit, and it is closed.

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE.

bkn/-