Strange are the ways of court in dealing with interlocutory applications and this is a case of typical nature. 2. The suit related to the framing up of a scheme for the Management of the Vakkom Puthen Mukkaluvattom Bhagavathy Temple and for the removal of the defendants 2 and 3 as trustees and office bearers of the temple.
3. After obtaining leave, suit was filed as per the provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and publication under Order 1 Rule 8(2) CPC was also made. Soon thereafter, the petitioners along with respondents 20 and 21 came up with an application as I.A.No.74/2005 to implead them as additional plaintiffs. Copy of the said petition is produced as Ext.P2. That remained on file without being taken up and orders being passed on the same. In the meanwhile, it so happened that leave granted was revoked and that lead the parties to approach this Court by filing R.F.A.No.4/2011. This Court allowed the appeal and left open the contention regarding Section 92 CPC. Thereafter the petitioners changed their counsel and they pressed for hearing of Ext.P2. It was then that the objection was filed by the 6th defendant, copy of which is produced as Ext.P3. On Ext.P2, the impugned order (Ext.P5) has been passed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners points out that by no stretch of imagination, either on facts or in law, the order can be sustained. The petitioners have filed the application to get themselves impleaded in the suit as early as in 2005 and the mere fact that orders are not passed on the petition, the petitioners cannot be found fault with. The other objection that petitioners 3 and 5 were not available is not a ground to reject the petition as far as the petitioners 1, 2 and 4 are concerned. It so happened that during the pendency of the petition, the 3rd petitioner left for heavenly abode and the 5th petitioner left for job abroad. These are not sufficient grounds to decline the prayer and the court below has erred in its order.
5. Sri.R.Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents pointed out that it is only a tactic adopted by the petitioners to prolong the suit and that may not be permitted.
6. One shall not forget that in a scheme suit under Section 92 CPC, Order 1 Rule 8 (2) publication having been carried out. Any person who claims to be interested in the Trust can come forward with a prayer to implead him in the suit. The original plaintiff is not keeping good health and that prompted the petitioners to file I.A.No.74/2005. There is nothing to indicate that the petitioners were not agile in prosecuting the petition. There is no observation by the court below that when the matter was taken up, on any occasion, the petitioners were absent. The mere fact that the petition remained pending till it was taken up for orders culminating in Ext.P5, it could not be said that it was due to the fault of the petitioners. The absence of petitioners 3 and 5 was properly explained and one fails to understand how their absence will be a reason to reject the application. At any rate, the 5th petitioner had not disowned the petition. The court below has therefore clearly erred in dismissing I.A.No.74/2005.
This Original Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the same stands allowed and the consequent amendment will be carried out. Since the suit is of the year 2005, the trial court shall take every endeavour to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE smp