Amendment to substitute a deceased society representative is not barred merely because Order XXII Rule 10 applies.

The respondent/plaintiff society instituted O.S. No. 62 of 2012 before the District Munsif Court, Coonoor, seeking recovery of vacant possession of approximately 2.45 acres, damages for unauthorised occupation, and costs.

The plaintiff alleged that the property had been leased to the defendant society on 1 February 1988 for an annual rent of ₹12 and that the lease expired in 2008, after which the defendant failed to vacate.

The defendant denied the lease, disputed the plaintiff’s title, and claimed entitlement based on possession of the original title deeds and its welfare activities.

During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff society’s President/Chairman, A. Masilamani, died on 29 April 2020.

The plaintiff filed I.A. No. 3 of 2020 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, seeking to substitute D. Samuel Raj, stated to have been elected as the new President/Chairman by a meeting dated 17 June 2020 and authorised to continue the litigation.

The defendant opposed the application, contending that the application should have been filed under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC and that Samuel Raj had not been validly elected and had allegedly been removed from the society’s membership.

The District Munsif allowed the amendment, holding that the validity of Samuel Raj’s election was a matter for the competent Registrar/forum and that the dispute did not prevent amendment of the plaint.

The defendant challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint to reflect the death of the former President/representative and appointment of his successor could be rejected solely because the plaintiff had not proceeded under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC.

2. Whether the alleged invalid election, removal from membership, or lack of recognition of D. Samuel Raj disentitled him from representing the plaintiff society and continuing the suit.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits amendment of pleadings where necessary for determining the real questions in controversy, subject to the principles governing procedural fairness and avoidance of prejudice.

Order XXII Rule 10 CPC concerns continuation of proceedings where an interest in the subject matter of the suit has devolved during its pendency; however, the court held that the choice of procedural provision should not result in unnecessary multiplicity or delay where the amendment merely records a subsequent change in the society’s representative.

Procedural law is intended to advance justice rather than obstruct adjudication, and an amendment that introduces neither a new cause of action nor a change in the nature or character of the suit may be allowed.

Questions concerning the validity of the election or appointment of a society office-bearer, and compliance with the society’s bye-laws, may be adjudicated before the appropriate statutory or competent forum and need not be conclusively determined in an interlocutory amendment application.

The High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not warrant interference merely because another procedural course may have been available, absent material illegality or jurisdictional error.

The proposed amendment did not alter the plaintiff’s cause of action, reliefs, or the nature of the possession suit; it only recorded the death of Masilamani and the alleged appointment of Samuel Raj as the society’s successor representative.

Requiring the plaintiff first to file an application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC and thereafter a separate amendment application would create avoidable procedural delay and multiplicity of proceedings.

The death certificate, minutes of the General Body Meeting, and society resolution supported the plaintiff’s assertion that Samuel Raj had been appointed and authorised to represent the society.

Although the defendant disputed the genuineness of the signatures, compliance with the bye-laws, and Samuel Raj’s membership status, those issues concerned the validity of his election and could be decided in appropriate proceedings; they did not justify rejection of the amendment at that stage.

Accordingly, the trial court had acted within its jurisdiction in allowing the amendment, and no supervisory interference was warranted.

It held that the plaintiff’s invocation of Order VI Rule 17 CPC, rather than Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, was not by itself a ground to reject the amendment, and that the disputed validity of Samuel Raj’s election or membership could not be conclusively determined in the amendment proceedings.

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, the order dated 20 January 2023 in I.A. No. 3 of 2020 in O.S. No. 62 of 2012 was upheld, no costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.