IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.07.2024 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN C.R.P.(NPD).No.3172 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.19590 of 2023 Diamond Das ... Petitioner vs

1.Cosmo City Residents Welfare Association CCRWA, Represented by the authorised person, No.1/53, Dr.Abdul Kalam Road, Pudupakkam, Chennai – 603103

2.Sreenivasarao Kattaa 3.Mohanraj Murugesan

4.Vijay Krishna

5.The District Registrar of Societies, Chengalpattu

6.The State Bank of India, Represented by its Bank Manager, Padur Branch, Chengalpattu. ... Respondents Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 08.02.2023 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.148 of 2022 on the file of Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.T.Bharath Gowtham For R1 to R4 : Mr.A.R.Sakthivel For R5 : Dr.S.Suriya Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition arises against the fair and decretal order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.148 of 2022, dated 08.02.2023.

2. O.S.No.148 of 2022 is a suit filed by the civil revision petitioner/plaintiff seeking for a declaration that the Minutes of General Body Meeting dated 12.12.2021 and all the resolutions passed therein are null and void and incapable of giving effect to and for mandatory injunction to refund the amounts collected from the Members of CCRWA and for other consequential reliefs.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that an apartment complex under the name and style of Cosmo City was created at Pudupakkam in Chennai. There are totally 2174 flats in the said apartment. In terms of bye-law of the association, the owners of the individual flats are Members of the 1^st defendant-association. The plaintiff inter alia, will plead that during the height of Covid-19, a physical meeting was called for on 12.12.2021 in utter violation of the orders passed by the Government with respect to lock downs prohibiting physical meetings. After having called for a meeting, the 1^st defendant passed a resolution that all 2174 members from all the 4 blocks would have to bear a cost of Rs.6,50,00,000/- being the amounts for carrying out minor civil works. The allegation is that the 1^st defendant-association itself had become defunct and defendants 2 to 4 are not making available to the members the relevant documents in their possession for verification. 4. The plaint further proceeds that the 1^st defendant had threatened that in case the amounts are not paid, they will impose an arbitrary penal charge of 18% per annum on the delayed payments of additional estimates approved in the general meeting held on 12.12.2021. The plaint proceeds that though an individual is representing the members of the 1^st defendant-association, being a suit filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, notice has to be issued in terms of Order 1 Rule 8(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, an application was taken out under Order 1 Rule 8(2) to issue notice in terms of the said provision. After receipt of the objections, the learned Principal District Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu, has proceeded to dismiss the petition, against which the present civil revision petition.

5. The grounds on which the petition has been dismissed is as follows:-

“Now on perusal of the petition as well as counter it appears the petitioner/plaintiff is not representing the flat owners but he has filed the suit in the individual capacity. There is no proof or authorization to the plaintiff to represented on behalf of other owners. The petitioner/plaintiff cannot file the suit in a representative capacity. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit in a representative capacity. The petition under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC has to be dismissed”.

Being aggrieved by this laconic order, the present civil revision petition has been presented.

6. Heard Mr