The court affirmed the need for due consideration of by-law amendments within the context of society management, emphasizing procedural fairness and substantive rights during appeals.

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in A.S.No.90 of 2020.

2. The present suit in O.S.No.81 of 2016 was laid with a prayer to frame a scheme for administration of Melapalayam Muslim Girls Higher Secondary School and to remove the second defendant, being the member of the Melapalayam Muslim Girls Educational Society and for other reliefs. In paragraph (10) of the plaint, it has been specifically pleaded that the second defendant is the member of the Executive Committee of the Society. He is also working as Office Assistant in the said school and is receiving salary. As per the amended By-law No.13, the Members of the Society should not be holding any office or employment under the Society.

3. It is essential to extract the said paragraph 10, which reads as follows:-

"10. 2k; gpujpthjp fy;tpr;rA;fj;jpd; braw;FG cWg;gpdh ;

Mthh;. mth; K!;yPk; kfsph; Bky;epiyg;gs;spapy; mYtyf cjtpahsuhft[k; mjhtJ Cjpak; bgWk; CHpauhf gzp g[hpe;J tUfpwhh.; jpUj;jg;gl;l rAf; tpjp vz;.13d;go rA;f cWg;gpdh;fs; ve;j cj;Bahfj;jpYk; nUf;ff;TlhJ. i& rA;f tpjpf;F Kuzhf 2k; gpujpthjp gzpg[hpe;J tUfpwhh;."

4. The said averments are denied in the written statement. It is the admitted case of the second defendant that he is both the member of the society and also working as an office assistant receiving salary from the school run by the Society. However, it is his case that there is no such stipulation in By-law No.13. The relevant portion of the written statement contained in paragraph (9)

of the written statement is extracted as follows:-

"gpuhJ ghuh 10y; fz;l rA;fjpfs; cz;ikay;y. rAf; j;jpd;

braw;FG cWg;gpdh; kl;LBk rA;fj;jpd; brayhsuhf bray;gl naYk;. mjd;gpd;g[ 2Mk; gpujpthjp braw;FG cWg;gpduhd gpd; brayhsuhf gzp Vw;W elj;jp tUfpwhh;. rA;f tpjp 13y; rA;f cWg;gpdh;fs; ve;jtpjkhd cj;jpBahfj;jpYk; nUf;ff; TlhJ vd fz;Ls;sjhf TWtJ jtW. rA;f tpjpf;F Kuzhf 2Mk; gpujpthjp bray;gl;L tUfpwhh; vd;gJ bgha;ahf g[ide;J Twg;gl;Ls;sJ. rA;f brayhsuhf 2Mk; gpujpthjp rAf; j;jpypUe;J ve;jtpj CjpaKk; bgwhky; gzpahw;wptUfpwhh;. muR Mizg;goa[k; Mrphpauhf gzp g[hpe;JtUk;

egh; kl;LBk eph;thf gzpapy; nUe;J brayhw;w KoahJ."

5. The Trial Court, considered this issue under issue Nos.3 and 5 in internal pages 13 and 14 of the judgment holding that the plaintiff did not prove about the stipulation in By-law No.13. The Trial Court has otherwise given a specific finding that the second defendant himself has admitted that he is an office assistant working in the school and receiving his salary. Against the said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court dated 07.09.2020, the present appeal suit in A.S.No.90 of 2020 is filed. Pending the Appeal Suit, an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, is filed to receive the copy of the alleged amendment as an additional document.

The same was also taken up along with the main Appeal Suit.

6. After hearing, the appellate Court found that whether there exists an amendment to By-law No.13, is the point which is to be decided so as to determine the lis between the parties and therefore, when the rival claims are made as if the said amendment itself is produced along with the plaint and since the defendant in the suit, being in the administration of the Society, had not produced the copy of the resolution book even after a notice to produce issued by the plaintiff, had passed this preliminary order directing that the said document be taken on file and the. matter be re-opened for marking the additional document, keeping open the rights of the parties to mark the said document as well as to raise objections in accordance with the law at the time of marking. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed.

7. Mr. H.Arumugam, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that firstly, what is produced is only a photocopy. By relying upon the judgment of a Coordinate Single Bench of this Court in Manikandan v. Samband