Animadverting upon the order dated 05.07.2007 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore in I.A.No.2655 of 2005 in O.S.No.2317 of 2004, this civil revision petition is focussed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.
3. The facts giving rise to the filing of this revision petition as stood exposited from the records as well as the submission made by both the sides could succinctly and precisely be set out thus:
The revision petitioner herein filed the suit in O.S.No.2317 of 2004 before the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore seeking the following relief:
"to restrain the defendants, their men, servants and agents etc from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and running of the canteen in any manner except by due process of law."
Whereupon the defendants filed their written statement. During the pendency of the suit, I.A.No.2655/2005 was filed by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC so as to implead Rev.Father Thomas Acquinas. After hearing both sides, the lower Court dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said dismissal, the present civil revision petition has been filed on various grounds.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would develop his argument based on the grounds of revision to the effect that in the plaint itself, averments have been found as to how the plaintiff was put into possession as a tenant based on an agreement, which emerged between the management of the College viz.Bishop Ambrose College and the petitioner herein and in such a case, it is just and necessary to implead the Rev.Father Thomas Acquinas, who is responsible for managing the college and in his absence the petitioner would be prejudiced in prosecuting the matter as against the defendants and get reliefs from the Court.
5. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 would develop her argument to the effect that the said Rev Father Thomas Acquinas is not at all a necessary party in his individual capacity; the college, viz.,Bishop Ambrose College, is being run by the Principal and the Secretary of the College, the trial court was right in dismissing the application and no interference in the revision is required.
6. Considering the pro et contra, I would like to recollect certain jurisprudential point at this juncture. This Civil suit is on a different footing from other proceedings A civil suit could be filed only as against an individual human beings, legal persons and juristic units/ personalities. A reference to Order 29 as well as Order 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, could be referred to and a bare perusal of it also would support the view taken by me supra.
7. Salmond on Jurisprudence in Section 66 defines, who is the legal persons. An excerpt from it would run thus:
"66. Legal Persons:
A legal person is any subject-matter other than a human being to which the law attributes personality. This extension, for good and sufficient reasons, of the conception of personality beyond the class of human beings is one of the most noteworthy feats of the legal imagination, and the true nature and uses of it will form the subject of our consideration during the remainder of this chapter.
The law, in creating legal persons, always does so by personifying some real thing. There is, indeed, no theoretical necessity for this, since the law might, if it so pleased, attribute the quality of personality to a purely imaginary being, and yet attain the ends for which this fictitious extension of personality is devised. Personification, however, conduces so greatly to simplicity of thought and speech, that its aid is invariably accepted. The thing personified may be termed the corpus of the legal person so created, it is the body into which the law infuses the animus of a fictitious personality."
8. The gist and kernel of the law relating to filing of a suit as against the juristic persons/legal persons is well settled. Individual human being could be sued seeking relief as against them. But, if the pleadings in the plaint are to the effect that an agreement has been entered into with the management represented by the officials of that management, certainly, the plaintiff is enjoying to set out what is the legal personality of that management.
9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff, in all fairness has drawn the attention of this Court to the communication received by him under the Right to Information Act from Bharathiyar University, Coimbatore and from that it is clear that the Bishop Ambrose College is run by the Educational agency, viz., Coimbatore Diocese Society, Bishop's House, P.B.No.6, Big Bazaar Street, Coimbatore 641 001 and as such, whenever an official of the said society in his official capacity is entering into contract with another, it is deemed that the contract is only between the society, viz., educational agency and the other person concerned.
10. A bare perusal of the plaint averments would indicate that the plaint averments are that the plaintiff entered into possession of the canteen under agreement, which emerged between the administration and himself and in such a case, the impleadment of the Rev.Father Thomas Acquinas, who is responsible for management of the College is a necessary.
11. I would like to point out that the Bishop's college is not a legal entity and it is obvious and axiomatic from my discussion supra. The Coimbatore Diocese society is running the college. Hence, it is for the plaintiff, who has chosen to file the suit to find out whether the Principal and Secretary have been empowered by the Society, i.e.the educational agency to function and represent on behalf of it. If it is so, the Principal or Secretary would be the appropriate persons to represent the society and figure as such, as the representative of the said society. As has been correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents herein, Rev. Father Thomas Acquinas, in his individual capacity, cannot be a party and in fact the averments in the plaint also does not disclose any specific cause of action personally as against the individual, viz., the Rev.Father Thomas Acquinas.
12. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that straightaway, the plaintiff was not justified in seeking to implead Rev.Father Thomas Acquinas. in his personal capacity. It is for the petitioner to workout his remedy in the way known to law and that too, in the wake of the observation made by me supra.
G.RAJASURIA,J vj2
13. With the above observation, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.