E D CHARLES Vs. G SELVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 to 8 in O.S. No. 130 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Ariyalur are the revision Petitioners. There vision petition is filed to strike off the plaint in O.S. No. 130 of 2010.

(2.) The above suit was filed by the first Respondent for injunction restraining the revision Petitioners here in from interfering with the administration and governance of the second Respondent Church by the President/Bishop Trichy. The first Respondent/Plaintiff also filed an Application in I.A. No. 186 of 2010 for temporary injunction and the learned Sub Judge passed an order of ad interim injunction on 17.9.2010 and adjourned the case to 30.9.2010. On 30.9.2010, the revision Petitioners appeared through counsel and on the very same day, the first Respondent herein/Plaintiff filed a memo before the court below stating that he is not interested in prosecuting the suit and prayed for dismissal of the suit as not pressed. The first Respondent also filed another memo to revoke the vakalat of his counsel. The learned Sub Judge, after entertaining the memos filed by the first Respondent/Plaintiff, passed an order on 30.9.2010 that the application is filed by some parties to imp lead themselves as Plaintiffs in the suit and the same is pending and the suit is filed on behalf of the members of the said church and the suit was not filed by the Plaintiff for his personal interest and therefore, the petition filed under Order 1 Rule 8 has to be pursued to find out whether those persons have to be imp leaded and ordered the petition and adjourned the case to 18.10.2010 and also extended the injunction already granted. The case was taken up on 18.10.2010 and on that date also the learned Sub Judge adjourned the case to 29.10.2010 and extended the interim order of injunction and on 29.10.2010 also the case was adjourned to 29.11.2010 and the interim order was extended till then. In the circumstances, the present revision petition is filed by the revision Petitioners to strike off the plaint in O.S. No. 130 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Ariyalur.

(3.) Mr. G. Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel for the revision Petitioners submitted that the court below has no jurisdiction to extend the order of injunction, when the Plaintiff has filed a memo for withdrawal of the suit, and the court has no other option except to permit the Plaintiff to withdraw the suit and the court cannot adjourn the case by extending the interim orders already granted. He further submitted that the interim orders passed in the suit can be extended only during the pendency of the suit. When once the suit is withdrawn by the Plaintiff, the interim orders cannot be extended and having come to know that the Plaintiff has filed the memo to withdraw the plaint, the court below should not have extended the order of injunction. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the court below erred in holding that the application under Order 1 Rule 8 is filed by some parties to imp lead themselves in a representative capacity and that application has to be pursued and the suit is also filed by the Plaintiff in a representative capacity. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that under Order 1 Rule 8(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, only when a suit is instituted in a representative capacity after getting leave of the court, any person can be imp leaded as Defendant after getting necessary permission, but, in this case, the suit was not filed in a representative capacity and no permission was granted by the court permitting the Plaintiff to file the suit in a representative capacity and therefore, the observation of the court below that the application filed under Order 1 Rule 8 is pending and therefore, the injunction can be extended, cannot be allowed to stand and therefore, the plaint has to be struck off. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following decisions: