Allowed

Anil Viswanath v. Secretary,S.N.D.P.Sakham Yogam NO.46

Kerala HC1 Apr 2013OP(C)/288/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged election of S.N.D.P. Sakha Yogam conducted after suit instituted for injunctive relief. Court allowed separate applications to amend plaint and implead elected members, holding challenge permissible despite Munsiff's view on efficacious remedies.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders on entitlement to challenge election by amendment are set aside; petitioner permitted to file fresh applications for amendment and impleadment.

Anil Viswanath Vs Secretary,S.N.D.P.Sakham… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2013/11TH CHAITHRA 1935

¶5

OP(C).No. 288 of 2013 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OS. NO. 241/2011 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHANGANACHERRY DATED 10-01-2013.

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

¶9

ANIL VISWANATH, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.VISWANATH, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, KADAYANIKKADU KARA, VELLAVOOR VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.S.JAYAKRISHNAN SMT.S.USHAKUMARI

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

S.N.D.P.SAKHA YOGAM NO.46, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RENJITH KALAYIL, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRABOSE, KALAYIL HOUSE, KUNNUMBHAGOM KARA, VELLAVOOR VILLAGE-686 541.

¶13

S.N.D.P. SAKHA YOGAM, BOARD MEMBER P.M.CHANDRAN, APPOINTED AS ELECTION RETURNING OFFICER OF THE S.N.D.P. SAKHA YOGAM NO.46, KADAYANIKKADU-686 541.

¶14

K.N.GIRISH, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.NATESAN, KONATTU HOUSE, PATHANADU P.O., PLAKKAPADY BHAGOM, KANGAZHA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM-686 541.

¶15

R1& R2 BY ADVS. SMT.SARITHA THOMAS

¶16

SRI.SAJEEVAN KURUKKUTTIYULLATHIL

¶17

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

OP(C).No. 288 of 2013 ( )

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

¶22

EXT P1 : COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 05.08.2011 IN O.S.NO.241 OF 2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHANGANACHERRY.

¶23

EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE PETITION IN I.A.NO.1979 OF 2012 IN O.S. NO. 241 OF 2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHANGANACHERRY.

¶24

EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.1979 OF 2012 IN O.S.NO.241 OF 2011 DATED 10.01.2013 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHANGANACHERRY.

¶25

EXT.P4 : COPY OF OTHE PETITION IN I.A. NO.216 OF 2012 IN O.S. NO.241 OF 2011 FILED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF C.P.C. TO AMEND THE PLAINT.

¶26

EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.08.2012 IN I.A. NO.216 OF 2012 IN O.S. NO.241 OF 2011 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHANGANACHERRY.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL

¶28

/ TRUE COPY /

¶29

¶30

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶31

THOMAS P. JOSEPH,J -------------------------------O.P.(C) NO.288 of 2013

¶32

Dated this the 1^st day of April 2013

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

As amended, petitioner/plaintiff is challenging

¶35

Exts.P3 and P5 orders passed by the learned Munsiff's, Changanacherry in O.S. No.241 of 2011.

¶36

Petitioner sued the respondents/defendants for

¶37

a decree for prohibitory injunction against conduct of election to the S.N.D.P. Sakha Yogam. Urgent notice was issued to the respondents on the application for injunction. According to the petitioner, after getting that notice, respondents conducted election and declared a new executive committee on 07.08.2011. Petitioner filed I.A. No.216 of 2012 to amend the plaint to challenge election conducted after institution of the suit. That application was dismissed by Ext.P5, order for the reason that by way of amendment petitioner is seeking new reliefs and that petitioner has other efficacious remedies before him (to challenge the election). That was followed by petitioner

¶38

O.P.(C) NO.288 of 2013 2

¶39

filing Ext.P2, application for impleadment of the elected members and for amendment of the plaint. That application was dismissed by Ext.P3 order for the reason among other things, that Ext.P5, order has become final.

¶40

Learned counsel submits that since the impugned election was conducted after institution of the suit, it is well within the right of petitioner to amend the plaint and incorporate relief against the election as well. Learned counsel for respondents contended that Ext.P2, application is defective in that it is for impleadment of elected candidates and consequential amendment.

¶41

I am unable to agree with the view of learned Munsiff that there could be no challenge to the election conducted after institution of the suit. That is a development that took place subsequent to the institution of the suit for prohibitory injunction. Hence, it is possible to challenge election by amendment of the plaint. Whether petitioner has other efficacious remedies or not are all matters not connected with the request for amendment of plaint.

¶42

O.P.(C) NO.288 of 2013

¶43

¶44

But, there is some technical defect in Ext.P2, application in that there is only a single application for impleadment and amendment. There should have been separate applications for amendment of the plaint, to challenge the election conducted subsequent to the filing of the suit and for impleadment of the newly elected office bearers. Learned counsel requests that petitioner may be permitted to file separate applications for the purpose.

¶45

Having heard learned counsel on both sides I am inclined to allow that request.

¶46

Resultantly this original petition is disposed of as

¶47

under;

¶48

Finding entered by the learned Munsiff

¶49

In Exts. P3 and P5 orders on merit as to the entitlement of petitioner to challenge the election held subsequent to the institution of the suit by way of amendment of the plaint is set aside.

¶50

It is open to the petitioner to file fresh

¶51

applications for amendment of plaint and for impleadment of newly elected office bearers as

¶52

O.P.(C) NO.288 of 2013 4

¶53

provided under the law and challenge the election

¶54

conducted after filing of the said suit.

¶55

If any such applications are preferred, learned Munisiff shall decide those applications on merit and pass appropriate orders on it.

¶56

THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE

¶57

Anil Viswanath v. Secretary,S.N.D.P.Sakham Yogam NO.46

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Viswanath v. Secretary,S.N.D.P.Sakham Yogam NO.46

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajan Vs v.K.Ramakrishnan

Shekaran Nair Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer,Kseb

Neelakantan Vs Sumithran

Divisional Forest Officer Vs Venkatta Krishna Bhatt

Sadanandan Vs George

Vamana Prabhu Vs Sreekrishna Swami Devaswom