CRP.PD.No.3503 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 15.02.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

CRP.PD.Nos.3503 of 2019 and

CMP.No.22997 of 2019

Mukesh Chand Gulecha

..Petitioner

Vs.

1.Shree Chandraprabhu Maharaj

Juna Jain Mandir Trust(Regd),

Represented by its Secretary,

No.345, Mint Street, Chennai-600 079

2.The Dadabadi Sri Jin Kushalsuriji Jin Chandrasuriji Trust,

Represented by its Managing Trustee,

No.370, Konur High Road, Chennai-600 023

3.Rajesh Samdaria

..Respondents

PRAYER:

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India against the order dated 22.04.2019 passed in

IA.No.1 of 2019 in OS.No.14334 of 2010 passed by the learned VII

Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

For Petitioner

: Mr.ARL.Sundaresan,

Senior Counsel

for Mr.K.G.Vasudevan

For Respondents

For R1

: Mr.A.E.Ravichandran

For R3

: Mr.K.V.Sanjeev Kumar

R2

: notice served

1/10

http://www.judis.nic.in

CRP.PD.No.3503 of 2019

ORDER

This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated

22.04.2019 passed in IA.No.1 of 2019 in OS.No.14334 of 2010 passed by

the learned VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, thereby

dismissing the petition to implead the petitioner as proposed defendant in

the suit filed by the first respondent herein.

2.

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner

submitted that the first respondent filed suit for injunction restraining the

second respondent herein from interfering and involving with the

plaintiff's administration, management, construction and any other work

relating to the Shree Sumathinath Bhagawan Jain Swethamber Temple.

The petitioner was the Joint Secretary of the plaintiff Trust. Now the first

respondent is acting as against the interest of the plaintiff Trust and filed

suit. In fact, the land in which the temple is situated belong to the first

defendant and it was given only to administer the temple and

management of the said temple. Beyond the said power, the plaintiff has

no other power to restrict the first defendant. Further the court below

dismissed the petition only on the ground that there is a personal issue

2/10

http://www.judis.nic.in

CRP.PD.No.3503 of 2019

between the plaintiff and the petitioner herein and as such he filed as

against the interest of the plaintiff Trust. Therefore, the petitioner is a

proper and necessary party to decide the suit. He further submitted that

by the order dated 25.03.2019, the President of the Trust categorically

stated that the plaintiff who is the Secretary of the plaintiff Trust has been

acting unilaterally without getting proper instruction from the other

trustees. In fact, the President requested him to act in consultation with

the Trust Board, but he is acting unilaterally contrary to Trust deed.

Therefore, the Trust Board has no objection to implead the petitioner as

one of the defendant in the suit filed by the plaintiff.

3.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that originally

the suit was filed before this Court in CS.No.447 of 2007 and thereafter in

the year 2010, it was transferred to the file of the VII Additional City Civil

Court, Chennai and renumbered as OS.No.14334 of 2010. After

examination of PW1 and while DW1 was in box for cross examination, the

petitioner herein filed this petition only to drag the proceedings. In fact,

the suit property itself was situated in the land belong to the Government

which was leased out to the management of the plaintiff Trust. The

3/10

http://www.judis.nic.in

CRP.PD.No.3503 of 2019

temple was in dilapidated condition and as such the temple was

demolished and yet to construct new temple. While being so, the second

respondent herein objected the same. Therefore, the plaintiff was

constrained to file the suit for injunction as against the s