VIRUDHUNAGAR HINDU NADARGAL DHARMA PARIBALANA SABAI vs. TUTICORIN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7764 OF 2019 (@  Special Leave Petition (C) No.26055 of 2018) Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma  Paribalana Sabai & Ors.   ... Appellants Versus Tuticorin Educational Society & Ors.       ... Respondents J U D G M E N T V. Ramasubramanian   1. Leave granted. Signature Not Verified 2. Aggrieved by an order of the High Court passed Digitally signed by R NATARAJAN Date: 2019.10.03 18:59:17 IST Reason: under Article 227 of the Constitution, vacating an interim   order   of   injunction   granted   by   the   trial 2 Court, the plaintiffs have come up with this appeal.  3. We have heard Mr. R. Anand Padmanabhan, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. 4. The appellants   herein   filed a suit O. S. No. 145   of   2018   on   the   file   of   Principal   District Munsif, at Thoothukudi praying  (i)  for a declaration that   the   notice   issued   by   the   sixth   defendant (second   respondent   in   this   appeal)   convening   the General Body Meeting of the first respondent–Society at   5   P.M.   and   the   Executive   Committee   meeting   at 5:30   P.M.   on   the   same   day   namely   05.05.2018   was illegal;   (ii)   for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 5 & 6 from convening the meetings of the General Body and the Executive Committee of the first respondent–society;  (iii)  for a   declaration   that   the   appointment   of   the   fifth defendant   (third   respondent   in   this   appeal)   as patron for life of the first defendant­Society was 3 unlawful;   (iv)   for   a   permanent   injunction restraining   the   sixth   defendant   (second   respondent in the appeal) from acting as the Secretary of the first defendant­Society and   (v)   for the appointment of a Commissioner to receive the list of members and to conduct free and fair election of office bearers of the first defendant­Society. 5. Along with the suit, the appellants/plaintiffs moved   an   Interlocutory   Application   i.e.   I.   A.   No. 386 of 2018 seeking an interim order of injunction restraining   the   respondents   from   convening   the meetings   of   the   general   Body   and   the   Executive Committee on 5.5.2018.  It   appears   that   the appellants/plaintiffs   also   moved   one   more Interlocutory   Application   i.e.   Interlocutory Application   No.387   of   2018   seeking   an   injunction restraining   the   defendant   nos.   5   &   6   from   acting respectively as Patron and the Secretary. 6. It   appears   that   the   suit   was   filed   on 23.04.2018   and   the   application   for   interim 4 injunction was moved on 24.04.2018. The Contesting defendants   filed   a   counter   affidavit   on   the   very next day  namely  25.04.2018 along with 19 documents. 7. Therefore, after hearing both sides, the trial Court   passed   an   order   on   26.04.2018   allowing Interlocutory   Application   No.386   of   2018   and injuncting the defendants from proceeding with the Meeting   of   the   General   Body   and   the   Executive Committee as scheduled on 5.5.2018. It is relevant to note that the trial Court not only took note of the pleadings on both sides but also took note of 12 documents filed by the plaintiffs and 19 documents filed   along   with   the   counter   affidavits   of   the defendants. 8. As   against   the   order   of   the   trial   court granting injunction, the fifth defendant in the suit (the   third   respondent   in   this   appeal)   who   was claiming to be the Patron for life, filed a Regular Appeal in C.M.A No.1 of 2018 on the file of the Sub­ Court at Thothukudi under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of 5 the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure.   But   the   respondent nos.1 & 2   herein   who were the defendant Nos.1 & 6 respectively,   instead   of   filing   a   Regular   Appeal, filed a Civil Revision in C.R.P.(MD) (PD) No.1084 of 2018 on the file of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Despite   objections   to   the   maintainability   of the   revision   on   the   ground   of   availability   of   an appellate   remedy   under   the   Code,   the   High   Court allowed   the   Civil   Revision   Petition   and   set   aside the order of injunction granted by the trial Court. It   is   against   the   said   order   that   the   plaintiffs have come up with the above appeal. 10. The   objection   to   the   maintainability   of   the revision was sought to be overcome by the High Court on   the   basis   of   a   few   decisions   which   revolved around   the   supervisory   jurisdiction   of   the   High Court   to   keep   the   subordinate   courts   within   the bounds of law. Then the High Court found fault with 6 the trial Court for taking up the application for injunction   filed   on   24.04.2018,   for   hearing   on 25.04.2018 and passing an order on 26.4.2018. This, in   the   opinion   of   the   High   Court,   was   a   case   of justice   being   hurried   and   consequently   getting buried.   Therefore,   the   High   Court   allowed   the revision and set aside the order of injunction.  11. Primarily   the   High   Court,   in   our   view,   went wrong in overlooking the fact that there was already an appeal in C.M.A. No. 1 of 2018 filed before the Sub­Court at Tuticorin under Order XLI, Rule 1 (r) of the Code, at the instance of the fifth defendant in   the   suit   (third   respondent   herein),   as   against the   very   same   order   of   injunction   and,   therefore, there   was   no   justification   for   invoking   the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. 12. Secondly, the High Court ought to have seen that when a remedy of appeal under section 104 (1)(i) read with   Order   XLIII,   Rule   1   (r)   of   the   Code   of   Civil Procedure,   1908,   was   directly   available,   the 7 respondents 1 and 2 ought to have taken recourse to the same. It is true that the availability of a remedy of appeal   may   not   always   be   a   bar   for   the   exercise   of supervisory   jurisdiction   of   the   High   Court.     In   A. 1 Venkatasubbiah   Naidu   Vs.   S.   Chellappan   &   Ors. ,   this Court held that “ though no hurdle can be put against the exercise of the Constitutional powers of the High Court, it is a well recognized principle which gained judicial recognition that the High Court should direct the party to avail himself of such remedies before he resorts to a Constitutional remedy ”.  13. But   courts   should   always   bear   in   mind   a distinction   between   (i)   cases   where   such   alternative remedy is available before Civil Courts in terms of the provisions of Code of Civil procedure and (ii) cases where   such   alternative   remedy   is   available   under special enactments and/or statutory rules and the fora provided   therein   happen   to   be   quasi­judicial authorities and tribunals. In respect of cases falling 1 (2000) 7 SCC 695 8 under the first category, which may involve suits and other proceedings before civil courts, the availability of an appellate remedy in terms of the provisions of CPC,   may   have   to   be   construed   as   a   near   total   bar. Otherwise, there is a danger that someone may challenge in a revision under Article 227, even a decree passed in a suit, on the same grounds on which the respondents 1 and 2 invoked the jurisdiction  of the High court. This   is   why,   a   3   member   Bench   of   this   court,   while overruling   the   decision   in   Surya   Dev   Rai   vs.   Ram 2 Chander Rai , pointed out in Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi

footing from the orders of authorities or Tribunals or courts other than judicial/civil courts. 14. Therefore wherever the proceedings are under the code   of   Civil   Procedure   and   the   forum   is   the   Civil Court, the availability of a remedy under the CPC, will deter the High Court, not merely as a measure of self imposed restriction, but as a matter of discipline and 2 (2003) 6 SCC 675 3 (2015) 5 SCC 423 9 prudence, from exercising its power of superintendence under the Constitution. Hence, the High Court ought not to   have   entertained   the   revision   under   Article   227 especially in a case where a specific remedy of appeal is provided under the Code of Civil Procedure itself.  15. Another   aspect   that   was   overlooked   by   the   High Court was that the second respondent  herein  namely Shri A. Rajendran was already restrained by the Sub­Court, from   functioning   as   the   Secretary   of   the   first respondent society. It is seen from the records that the civil revision was filed before the High court by the   first   respondent   society   as   well   the   second respondent herein. The second respondent herein was not only   the   second   petitioner   in   the   Civil   Revision Petition   filed   before   the   High   Court,   but   he   also sought to represent the first respondent­Society as its Secretary, before the High court in the Civil Revision. 16. But in a connected Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.7 of 2018 filed by the appellants   herein   (plaintiffs in the suit), the Sub­Court, Thoothukudi passed an order 10 dated   22.04.2018   restraining   the   second   respondent herein   for   acting   as   the   Secretary   of   the   first respondent­Society.   This   appeal   arose   out   of   the dismissal   by   the   trial   court,   of   an   interlocutory application I.A.No. 387 of 2018 filed by the appellants herein   for   restraining   the   second   respondent   herein from acting as the Secretary and another person from acting   as   the   Patron.   The   trial   Court   dismissed I.A.No.387 of 2018, but the plaintiffs filed an appeal in   Civil   Misc.   Appeal   No.7   of   2018.   The   same   was allowed by an order dated 22.04.2018 by the Sub­court, Thoothukudi   unseating   the   second   respondent   as   the Secretary.  Though the second respondent has claimed in his rejoinder, that the order passed in C. M. A. No. 7 of 2018 was challenged in a revision in CRP (MD) No. 1295 of 2019 and an order of status quo was obtained, from the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, the same happened after more than a year. Therefore, on the date on which the first respondent­Society filed the Civil Revision CRP (MD) No. 1084 of 2018 before the 11 high court, the second respondent herein was not the secretary and could not have acted on behalf of the society. This aspect was also overlooked by the High Court.  17. The observation of the High Court that the trial Court   proceeded   in   great   haste,   appears   to   be uncharitable.   It   is   true   that   the   application   for injunction was moved on 24.4.2018 but the respondent nos. 1 & 2 were very vigilant, if not overzealous and, hence, they not only filed a counter affidavit to the application   for   injunction   on   25.04.2018,   but   also filed 19 documents.  They also advanced arguments, only after considering which the trial Court passed an order on 26.4.2018. 18. Order XXXIX Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure itself   mandates   the   disposal   of   an   application   for injunction within 30 days, whenever an injunction was granted without notice to the opposite party. In this case,   the   trial   Court,   without   granting   an   ex­parte order   of   injunction,   chose   to   allow   the   opposite 12 parties   to   file   counter   affidavit(s)   along   with documents and then heard the opposite parties before allowing  the application  for injunction.  Finding the line   of   demarcation   between   speedy   disposal   and hurried dispatch, with mathematical precision, is not possible.   In   any   case,   even   if   the   High   Court   was convinced that the trial Court had proceeded hastily, the   High   Court   could   have   only   remanded   the   matter back. But the High Court allowed the application for injunction without recording any finding on merits. In fact the order of the Trial Court deals with the rival contentions   and   is   one   passed   on   merits   after   due consideration of the pleadings and documents. The High Court unfortunately did not even deal with the matter on   merits   to   over   turn   the   decision   of   the   Trial Court.   Therefore,   the   order   of   the   High   Court   is liable   to   be   set   aside   and   the   order   of   the   Trial Court is liable to be restored. 19.  But   it   is   brought   to   our   notice   that   after   the High Court allowed the Civil Revision petition by its 13 order   dated   28.08.2018,   the   second   respondent   herein proceeded with the meeting of the General Body and the Executive   Committee   on   25.09.2018   and   also   conducted elections. Notice was ordered and the interim order of the   status quo   was passed in the above special leave petition only on 8.10.2018. Hence, it was sought to be contended that the above appeal has virtually become infructuous.  20.  In normal circumstances, we would have agreed. But this is a case where every meeting of the General Body and   every   attempt   at   holding   elections   to   the   first respondent­Society   seem   to   have   created   a   series   of litigation before three different fora namely (i) the Civil Courts) (ii) the Registrar of Societies   (iii) the High court (in Writ Petitions arising out of orders of the Registrar of Societies).  This can be seen from the following table:

14

15

16

21. Therefore, we are of the view that the only way to bring   to   an   end   all   the   litigations   between   the parties   before   various   fora   is   to   set   aside   the impugned order and the elections held pursuant thereto and to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to convene the General Body as well as the Executive Committee for the   election   of   office   bearers.   Accordingly,   the appeal is allowed, the order of the high court as well as   the   elections   purportedly   held   pursuant   to   the order   of   the   High   Court   are   set   aside.     Smt.   S. st SORNALATHA,   Advocate,   No.1,   1   Street,   Chidambara Nagar,   Thoothukkudi­628   008,   is   appointed   as Commissioner with a mandate to do the following: (i) Within   two   weeks   of   receipt   of   a   copy   of   this order, the Advocate Commissioner shall address letters to   the   sponsoring   bodies/Societies   of   the   first respondent   society,   for   nominating   members   to   the 17 General Body and the Executive Committee of the first respondent­Society, as per the bye­laws. (ii) Within one week of receipt of the letter from the Advocate Commissioner, the sponsoring bodies shall send   a   list   of   members   nominated   by   them   to   the General   Body/Executive   Committee   of   the   first respondent society  (iii) Within   four   weeks   of   receipt   of   the nominations, the Advocate Commissioner shall convene a meeting of the General Body and the meeting of the Executive Committee and hold elections in accordance with the bye –laws. (iv) After   holding   elections,   the   Advocate Commissioner shall ensure that form Nos. 6 and 7 are registered with the Registrar of Societies so that the registration of such forms do not become the subject matter of any litigation at the instance of the rival groups. (v) The   Advocate   Commissioner   shall   be   paid,   by   the first   respondent   society,   a   remuneration   of   Rs. 18 1,00,000/­   apart   from   the   reimbursement   of   the expenses incurred by her. (vi) Till   the   elections   are   held   and   results declared,   the   Advocate   commissioner   shall   discharge the duties of the Secretary of the first Respondent­ Society  …………....................J/­ (Rohinton Fali Nariman) ………......................J/­ (V. Ramasubramanian) OCTOBER 03,  2019 NEW DELHI.