S.D. Joseph v. E.Ebinesan & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 10.08.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAHO.S.A.Nos.142 to 144 of 20091. S.D. Joseph2. A.D.Sundararaj3. D.S.V.J. Vasan Members of Madras YMCA.. Appellants in OSA 142 to 144/09Vs.1. E.Ebinesan2. J.S.Jeyakardoss3. YMCA Madras Trust, rep. By its Trustee, Dr.G.Ebinesan Young Men's Christian Association, No.223, NSC Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001.4. Crystal Creations (India) Pvt.Ltd. A1-92, 9th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040 rep. By its Director, Sarah Suchitra Savariragan.. Respondents 1 to 4 in all the OSAs5. R.Reginald Raj Member, Madras YMCA, S/o J.C.Raj, No.5, Rajavelu Lane, Royapuram, Chennai – 600 013...5th respondent in OSA.143/20096. Alex Charleston, Member – Madras YMCA, S/o Y.D.Charleston, No. 14-A, Brewery Road, Shenoy Nagar West, Chennai – 600 030.7. F.C.Jacob Sumithiran, Member – Madras YMCA, S/o Rev. Barnabas Christian, No.S-56, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040..Respondents 6 & 7 in OSA.143/2009 & Respondents 5 & 6 in OSA.144/2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ These appeals have been preferred under Order XXXVI Rule 11 ofO.S. Rules r/w Clause 15 of Letters Patent (1) to set aside thedecree and judgement dated 30.4.2009 passed by the learned singleJudge in C.S.No.862 of 2003 (in OSA 142/09)(2) To set aside the fairand decretal order dated 30.4.2009 passed by the learned single Judgein Application No.5385 of 2003 in CS.No.862 of 2003 and (in OSA143/09)(3) to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 30.4.2009passed by the learned single Judge in Application No.303 of 2004 inC.S.No.862/2003 (in OSA 144/09) respectively.For Appellants : Mr.R.Thiagarajan, Senior counsel for Mr.Isaac MohanlalFor Respondents : Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, Senior Counsel for Mr. S.Raghunathan for R1 to R3 Mr.V.T.Gopalan, Senior counsel for Mr.G.Krishnakumar for R4 COMMON JUDGMENT (The judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)This judgment shall govern all these three appeals viz.,OSA.No.142 of 2009, OSA.No.143 of 2009 and OSA.No.144 of 2009.2.O.S.A.No.142 of 2009 challenges the grant of permission in favour ofthe plaintiffs in C.S.No.862/2003 while the other two O.S.A.Nos.143 &144/2009 challenge the dismissal of revocation of leave originallygranted in favour of the plaintiffs to lead the suit and forimpleadment of the appellants.3. The said suit was filed to grant for permission to YMCA toenter into, with the Developer, the memorandum of understanding, asper the annexure and also agreements as may be required for thepurpose of joint development and construction of the buildings overthe scheduled mentioned property and to grant permission to theplaintiffs to execute lease deed or deeds in favour of the developerand its nominee or assignee of 53/100th share of the said propertyfor a term not exceeding 99 years on the following allegations.4. The first plaintiff/first respondent herein was the GeneralSecretary of Y.M.C.A, a registered Trust under the SocietiesRegistration Act, while the second plaintiff/second respondent hereinwas a Trustee. YMCA has been rendering yeomen services in and aroundChennai. YMCA is managed by Board of Directors, while its propertiesare managed by the Board of Trustees which has landed propertycomprised of 19 acres situated at 4/341 Old Mahabalipuram Road,Kottivakkam, Chennai which is described in the scheduled to theproperty. Pursuant to the proposal to develop an extent of 10 acres,out of 19 acres, it desired to enter into joint development agreementwith M/s. Crystal creations India Private Limited. The developer alsogave consent to invest its own fund for development of the property.YMCA does not have resources nor liquidity to develop the property.On perusal of the offers from different companies, M/s. CrystalCreations Private Limited was selected for the said purpose. TheBoard of Directors and Board of Trustees decided to accept the saidoffer on 03.09.2003 and 15.9.2003 respectively. The said 10 acres https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ were agreed to be developed in the ratio of 47:53. The YMCA was toretain 47% while 53% being leased to the developer. A lease deed hasto be executed for 5.24 acres out of the total extent of 10 acres fora period of 99 years in favour of the developer. The developer wouldpay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs per annum as lease rental for a periodof 33 years and thereafter, the increased rent, 10% over and abovethe last amount lease rent paid. On the expiry of the period of 99years, the ownership of the building would revert to YMCA. Under suchcircumstances, permission is sought for under Section 92(1)(f) of theCode of Civil Procedure. 5. The defendant/developer has supported the case of theplaintiffs/respondents 1 & 2 herein. While the matter stood thus,number of applications were filed, one for revoking the permissionoriginally granted, while the other to implead the appellants herein.6. The learned senior counsel appearing respondents raised thefollowing contentions.The respondents were the former Directors and full members ofthe YMCA. The property was highly valuable. It would be not lesserthan 30 lakhs per ground. Neither the General Body has givensanction for the said proposal nor the Board of Directors haveauthorised the plaintiffs to institute the suit. The Board did notknow about the nature of the joint venture. It was actually alienatedbehind the back of the Board. The property is more suited forestablishment of professional college. The said alienation was highlydetrimental and destructive of the objects and prospects of YMCA.The applicants have no authority to file a suit and it was notmaintainable. The suit property is in active use for the institutionfor conducting sports. The YMCA was not in need of any funds and ithas got huge deposits in banks. The plaintiffs should have approachedthe Court invoking section 92 of C.P.C. before commencement of thetransaction. The plaintiffs have entered into joint ventureagreement. They have negotiated the terms, share and price also andonly thereafter they have approached the Court which would clearlyindicate lack of bonafide of their part. The plaintiffs, withulterior motive, have caused publication only on the day prior tothe date of hearing. All the trustees should have arrayed as partiesto the suit. The leased out property for the period of 99 years wouldneither be prudent nor reasonable. It is highly impracticable torestore status quo ante after the period 99 years since there is allpossibility of creation of third party interest in the property bythe promoters. Under such circumstances, the respondents have got tobe added as party and the leave granted to the applicant to file thesuit under section 92 of C.P.C. has got to be revoked.7. On the above pleadings, the learned Single Judge raised fourpoints for determination as found in the judgement and no oralevidence was adduced on either side.8. After hearing the arguments advanced, the learned SingleJudge granted permission to enter into Memorandum of Understandingwith the developers and also to execute the lease deed in favour ofthe developer in respect of 53/100th share for the terms notexceeding 99 years while all the applications made were dismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellants, thelearned Senior counsel Mr.R.Thiagarajan would submit that the learnedtrial Court should have dismissed the suit seeking permission undersection 92 of CPC. The developer M/s. Crystal Creation PrivateLimited was impleaded as a defendant in the suit. The rights of theparties under the agreement cannot be decided under Section 92 ofCPC. The application to revoke the leave was made in the year 2003and the same was pending. Without deciding the application, thedefendant M/s. Crystal Creation Private Limited was impleaded asdefendant in the suit in the year 2008 which was also beyond thescope of Section 92 CPC. The appellants are the full members of theMadras YMCA. Hence, they had interest to protect and preserve theproperties of the Institution. 10. Added further learned counsel the dismissal of theapplication for impleadment by the appellants was erroneous. Had theybeen impleaded as a party, they would have established that theaverments and the documents filed by the plaintiffs were incorrectand the proposed joint venture was adverse to the interest of theTrust. The suit was filed by Mr.J.Ebinesan as General Secretary andby J.S.Jayakardoss as the President of the Madras YMCA without addingthe other Trustee either as plaintiffs or defendants. It is true theTrust was impleaded as the defendant but was six years after theinstitution of the suit. The Directors who were constructive trusteeswere not impleaded. The Trust has no legal entity but the trusteesare legal entities. In the absence of a clause in the Deed, all theTrustees should be parties to deal either as plaintiffs ordefendants. It was contended before the trial Court that theplaintiffs had no authorisation as required from the Board ofDirectors was unsustainable. As per the bye laws the Board ofDirectors were supreme body and only if the Board passes resolution,the Trustees could act. At the time when the suit was filed no onewas shown as defendant and they were impleaded after six years of theinstitution of the suit, that too, only after serious objectionsraised by four Directors and five full members. 11. Added further learned counsel, the Court by order dated21.11.2003 directed the plaintiffs to give notice by publication inleading dailies. This was intended to invite objections, if any,from anyone having interest in the Society and the Trust against theproposed deal and to file their objections to the Court either inperson or through their counsel on or before 5.12.2003. The suit wasposted for orders on 5.12.2003. While the matter stood thus, theplaintiff deliberately published the notice barely a day before thematter was posted, that was, on 4.12.2003 stating that C.S.No.862 of2003 was filed by the plaintiff under section 92 of C.P.C. seekingpermission for developing an extent of 10 acres of land belonging toYMCA situate at Kottivakkam and for the purpose of leasing an extentof 53/100th share of the said property to M/s. Crystal Creations(India) Private Limited and assigns for a period not exceeding 99years. While the direction was issued to the plaintiff to givepublication by order dated 21.11.2003, it was ordered that any personinterested in the Trust having any objections to the proposal couldfile their objections in the Court on or before 5.12.2003. It is alsostated in the publication that the suit was posted for hearing on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5.12.2003. It was observed by the learned Judge that it is only amere lapse on the part of the plaintiffs in not publishing theabove notice as specified by the Court. But it was deliberate,wilful and fraudulent play on the part of the plaintiffs to avoid thepeople raising objections. It is further observed by the trial judgethat the application filed by the appellants seeking to impleadthemselves as party to the proceedings have been filed with ulteriormotive to prolong the litigation. The ulterior motive was notexplained by the plaintiff. The appellants never protracted thematter but for obvious reasons the plaintiffs protracted the matterfor six long years. This was not considered by the trial Court.12. Added further learned counsel, when the appellants came toknow about the proposal and the deal and that too, meant for 99years, they immediately made an application that they should be addedas parties to raise their objections but that application was alsodismissed. When permission was sought for under 92 CPC, it cannotbe granted mechanically or as a matter of course, the the motivebehind the institution of the suit must be taken into consideration,that too, especially in view of the fact that no defendants werearraigned in the suit. The suit has been instituted without theknowledge and approval of the Board of Directors. The Board ofDirectors is the managing committee but they did not authorise theplaintiffs to institute the suit. The permission of the Board wasneither sought for nor given and the plaintiffs have no authority toenter into joint venture. The trial Judge has observed that the ordergranting leave is administrative in character and therefore, it doesnot affect the rights and interest of the parties concerned. Theorder granting leave was purely administrative and the leave tosue is granted and objections if any raised have to be consideredjudiciously before revoking the leave. Hence, it has to be borne thatonly the extracts of the minutes of the said meeting of the Board ofDirectors on 3.9.2003 was produced against the demand for theoriginal since at the said meeting the Board of Directors have nodetails about the transaction. 13. Further, the learned Single Judge has observed in its orderthat the landed property are lying vacant and therefore, there waspossibility of encroachment by the miscreants. But this observationis not correct since there is a compound wall and in the propertynumber of institutions are being run as on today. Hence, no questionof encroachment would arise. There is absolutely no need for thealienation of the property at this juncture as there are number ofinstitutions being run in that part of the property for decades.They were actually used for the institution and it is a place wherethe professional college could be established but this was not takeninto consideration and even since there was no need or urgency, inparticular, to lease out the property for a period of 99 years, whichwould be detrimental to the interest of the Trust and which was nottaken into consideration by the trial Judge. Further, a criminal casefor the breach of trust and for misappropriation were actuallyinitiated against the first plaintiff and also criminal case waspending. Under such circumstances, they could not even continue asGeneral Secretary or the President respectively. Their continuance inoffice is unauthorized and illegal. Further, in the instant case, itwas brought to the notice of Court that the matter was actually https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ pending before the Court of criminal law and the Trustees andDirectors were parties to the meeting in which resolutions have beenpassed.14. Added further learned counsel, needless to say, the suitunder section 92 CPC being a representative suit is binding not onlythe parties thereby but also the others who are interested in theTrust. All the co-trustees must join in a suit unless instrument ofTrust otherwise provides. The Trusts are not legal entities. Thetrustees alone are legal entities and the office of the trust is oneirrespective of the number of trustees and hence, all the trusteesshould join either as plaintiffs or defendants in the suit orproceedings relating to the Trust or its properties. But the trialJudge has erroneously granted permission and also dismissed theapplication for revocation. The application for impleadment of theappellants, for the reasons stated above, should have been allowedbut it has been refused. In view of the above, the learned seniorcounsel would submit that the order of the learned trial Judge hasgot to be set aside.15. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the respondentsMr.R.Krishnamoorthy, the learned senior counsel, would submit thatYMCA is a registered Association registered under the SocietiesRegistration Act. The management of YMCA is vested with the Board ofDirectors but the properties is vested with YMCA Madras Trust. TheBoard of Directors comprises of 21 Directors, one third of whom areelected annually at the Annual General Meeting. The term of office ofa Director is for a period of 3 years. This case was filed for thepurpose of getting permission to enter into a Memorandum ofUnderstanding in respect of the annexure as found in Annexure 'D' forthe purpose of joint development and construction of the building. Itcan executed lease deed in favour of the Developers in respect of53/100th share of the trust property for the term not exceeding 99years. 16. As regards the first contention raised by the appellant thatactually publication was ordered by the Court on 21.11.2003 and thecase was posted on 5.12.2003 but the publication was made on4.12.2003, therefore, it is found to be defective and there was noproper publication made, under such circumstances, originally, theleave granted should have been revoked are concerned, thiscontention has got to be discountenanced. According to the learnedcounsel, granting leave is administrative in character, apart fromthat, out of four trustees, two trustees have filed the suit.Thereafter, the trust was also added as a party. When the resolutionwas passed, all the trustees participated in the same. So long asthe property actually vested in the hands of the Trust, the Trusteesare competent to deal with the matter. They have acted with utmostcare. Even the scheme does not require that they must be placedbefore the General Body of the Trust. The Trustees have participatedbefore passing resolution. 17. In the instant case, the developer has also made anapplication to participate in the proceedings and he has been shownas a defendant. At this instance, it is true that the appellantsactually made application to become as parties. Three or four https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ trustees have participated in the resolution approving thedevelopment. With ulterior motive, they came forward to add them asparties. Once there are no other members or Directors to oppose thesame, merely because of the publication made on 4.12.2003 when thecase was to be taken up on 5.12.2003, it cannot be stated that anyprejudice was caused. The learned counsel would further add, in theinstant case as per the agreement between the parties, it was for aperiod of 99 years. The YMCA Trust does not have the sources todevelop the property. The property is situated outside Madras. Anagreement have entered into for 10 acres of property. Now, 5.24 acresof land was given for the purpose of promotion and two acres was keptfor car parking, and in so far as the understanding between theparties for the promotions was actually at the rate of 53:47 i.e., 53% being leased out to the promoter and 47% to be retained by theTrust. It is also pertinent to point out that in the share relatingto the ownership of the property if the construction is made, 53% ofthe constructed portion would be in the hands of the promoter, onlyas a lessee, for a period of 99 years and thus, the property would bevested in the hands of the developer for a period of 99 years. Thus,no inch of property would be vested in the hands of the developer andit would be beneficial to the Trust. 18. Added further learned counsel, it is the case wherepermission was sought for and the trial Court has considered all thecontentions putforth. In the counter affidavit it is averred thatthe trust was not having sufficient means and the arguments advancedbefore this Court was that out of the properties, two are mortgagedand the properties are likely to be brought for sale under TheSecuritization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets andEnforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and it would be quiteindicative of the fact that the trust was not having sufficientsources. Under such circumstances, if development was made, it wouldbe beneficial to the interest of the trust which would fetch Rs. 2lakhs per year which will continue for 33 years and when 33 yearswas over, 10% rent has to be increased. Under such circumstances,from any point of view, it cannot be stated that it is detriment tothe interest of the Trust. The trial Court has taken all thecontentions putforth and having found that it is for the interest ofthe Trust, no impediment was felt by the trial Judge to grant therelief . The order of the trial Court, insofar as permission isgranted and the denial of the request by the appellants to add themas parties are concerned, the trial Judge has taken a correct view.Four of the retired Directors have come up with an application onlywith a view to prolong the litigation . It is clearly found that theyhave come forward with an application with ulterior motive to addthem as party which lacks bonafide. Considering the same, the trialJudge has dismissed the application and the order passed by thetrial Judge has to be sustained by this Court.19. Advancing the argument on behalf of the promoter/defendant,Mr.V.T.Gopalan, the learned senior counsel would submit theapplication was filed by the promoter to add him as defendant andafter hearing the parties he was added as defendant. It is true thatthis defendant supports the case of the plaintiffs. He has putforththe proposal and only after the order of this Court, he has partedwith a sum of Rs.2 crores with the Trust. It is true that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ publication has been made and there are some irregularity but it iscurable. Further, so long as all other procedural formalities areconcerned, the plaintiff has sought the Court's permission forapproval of the Board of Directors and all the Trustees have comeforward and the Court has also considered all the aspects of thematter for granting the relief, under such circumstances, thedefendant who is the third party and who was also party to theproceedings before the trial Judge, has acted pursuant to the orderof the Court. Under such circumstances the order of the trial Judgehas got to be confirmed. 20. The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissionsmade. 21. It is not in controversy that the respondent 1 to3/plaintiffs have sought for permission under Section 92 of the Codeof Civil Procedure to enter into Memorandum of Understanding with thedeveloper and to execute lease deeds in favour of the developer of53/100th share to the property for a term not exceeding 99 years.22. It is a case where no oral evidence was adduced. The Courtlooked into the materials available and heard the submissions made.The trial Court dismissed two applications, one for adding theappellants as parties to the suit and the other application to revokethe permission originally granted in favour of the plaintiff, andordered the application for leave to sue. The learned counsel for theparties took the Court to the Scheme and also to the orders of theCourt passed previously in the original side by which it could beseen that the Management of YMCA is vested with the Directors whileall the properties of YMCA are vested in the hands of the Trust. Itis also not in controversy that at the initiation of theproceedings, the trustees have brought forth the suit and two of thetrustees were actually not added as parties. Pending the suit ,anapplication was made by the appellants that they should also be addedas parties and they should also be heard and the leave which wasgranted originally by the Court should be revoked on the reasonadduced by them. The developer had made applications to add him as aparty to the proceedings and he has also added as a defendant. Atthis juncture, it has to be pointed out that an application was madeby the defendant to add him as a party and the same was ordered bythe Court when the defendant/developer did not have any interest orright to argue in his favour in the suit property but he has beenadded as a party. 23. Insofar as the first application filed by the appellants toimplead them as parties is concerned, it is true some of them wereretired Directors but it not the case of the plaintiffs that they didnot continue as members of YMCA. So long as the appellants continueto be the members of YMCA, in the considered opinion of the Court,needless to say, they have got interest over the property, hence,they should also be given opportunity of being heard in respect ofthe deal, the subject matter of the litigation before the trialCourt. The reason adduced by the trial Judge that they have comeforward with an application with ulterior motive, even for a moment,cannot be accepted. In a given case like this, if the applicants wantto be added as parties, the Court must see whether they are necessary https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ party or not and whether the subject matter could be factuallyadjudicated upon in the absence of parties. In the instant case,permission sought for was to enter into development agreement inwhich the developer entered into lease deed for a period of 99 yearsand the property belongs to YMCA, a Public Trust. Under suchcircumstances, one would expect that every member who is havinginterest and right over the same should be given an opportunity ofbeing heard and hence, it cannot be denied. The reasons adduced bythe trial Judge, cannot be countenanced. Hence, the order has got tobe set aside. 24. So far as the application to grant leave is concerned, theCourt is afraid whether it can sustained the order of the trialJudge. In the instant case, the original application was filed undersection 92 of CPC for getting permission to deal with the propertysince it is public trust. It was averred in the original petitionthat it is a case where the order has got to be straight away madesince the property of YMCA vested with the trust and the trust wasalso a party before the Court. Under such circumstances, noimpediment could be felt by the Court for granting an order but thelearned single judge thought it is a fit case for orderingpublication and accordingly, ordered so, inviting objections if anyfrom the persons interested in the matter. The said order forpublication was passed by the Court on 21.11.2003 and the matter wasalso posted for hearing on 5.12.2003. It is a matter of surprise tonote that publication was made on 4.12.2003 i.e., one day prior tothe date of hearing. The said publication reads as follows:"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) C.S.No. 862 of 2003Dr.G.EbinesanGeneral Secretary,Young Men's Christian Association,No.223, N.S.C.Bose Road,Chennai – 600 001.Mr.J.SJayakardoss,Trustee,Young Men's Christian Association,No.223, N.S.C. Bose Road,Chennai – 600 001...PLAINTIFFSThe above suit has been filed under Section 92 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission ofthe Hon'ble Madras High Court for developing anextent of 10 acres belonging to Young Men'sChristian Association situate at Kotivakkam andfor such purpose, leasing an extent of 53/100thshare of the said property to Crystal Creations(India) Private Limited and/ or their assigns fora period not exceeding 99 (Ninety Nine) years. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The Hon'ble High Court by Order dated21.11.2003 was pleased to direct advertisement interms of which any person interested in the saidTrust, having any objections to the above, canfile their objections to the above, can filetheir objections to same in Court either inperson or through their Counsel on or before05.12.2003. The suit stands posted to05.12.2003."From a very reading of the above would clearly indicate that anyperson interested in the said Trust having any objection to the abovecan file their objections to the same in Court either in person orthrough counsel on or before 5.12.2003. In the above, the Court hasmade emphasis that any person interested in the said Trust whichwould mean every person having interest in the Trust can come forwardto make objections, if any. It is an admitted position that YMCA hasgot about four trustees and apart from that, 20 Directors and 247members. Any persons would also include any one of them so mentioned. 25. In the instant case, publication was made on 4.12.2003 andthe matter was taken up on *5.12.2003 and the same was considered bythe trial Judge. When the Court feels it fit and proper to issuepublication to the public inviting objections from any person who areinterested in the trust, the publication should be made givingreasonable time so that the person should look into the notice andcan take steps to appear before the Court and make objection eitherin person or through counsel. When the order was passed for makingpublication on 21.11.2003, giving 14 days time, the publication wasmade only on 4.12.2003, a day prior to the proceedings in the Courtwhich would clearly indicate that it has been deliberately andwantonly done so that the objections that might occur before theCourt could be avoided. It is quite evident that it has been taken ina lighter way by the trial Judge and has observed that it is onlyadministrative in character and it will not in any way affect theinterest of the Trust.The contention of the learned senior counselfor the respondents that there was procedural irregularity and thiscannot be given much weight, cannot be accepted because it goes tothe root of the matter. This Court should protect the property of theTrust. When permission was sought for under Section 92 CPC, the Courtwas of the opinion that it was a fit case where objections should becalled for from the persons who are interested in the Trust andpublication was ordered and when publication was ordered, the Courthas also given 14 days time, for objections, if any. Under suchcircumstances, publication should have been done giving reasonabletime to notice the same and the persons who have objections should begranted time to raise their objections before the Court either inperson or through counsel. Making publication on the previous day tothe Court proceedings, in the considered opinion of the Court, woulddefeat the purpose of which publication was ordered and intended to.Under such circumstances, the contention putforth by the learnedcounsel for the respondents, cannot be accepted. 26. It is true that the application to revoke the leave grantedwas made. A resolution was made by the Board of Trustees pursuant to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ which, permission has been sought for. Under such circumstances, thecontention of the learned counsel that the order of publicationwas only formalities, cannot be countenanced. The issuance of noticeby the Court was not empty formality, however, in the largerinterest of the Trust, the Court thought it fit to issue notice bymaking publication.It is matter of surprise to note that while theapplication to revoke the leave originally granted was filed in 2003and also pending for 5 long years, neither the application was takenup for consideration nor orders were passed for the disposal of thesuit. The said application was taken up for consideration along withthe disposal of the suit and the same was dismissed. The Court is ofthe considered opinion that the application should have been takenearlier and orders should have been passed earlier but not doing sowhich is denial of opportunity to the appellants to work out theirremedies. It is pertinent to point out that the application made bythe trust to become a party was made on 16.4.2009 and the same wasalso ordered adding the trust as the third plaintiff on 30.4.2009,the very date of the disposal of the suit. Once the Court thoughtit fit to pass an order for publication of the proceedings,reasonable time should have been given, if not done, it would defeatthe purpose for which order was made. Under such circumstances, itis a fit case where the leave originally granted has got to berevoked. Once the Court takes the view that the publication what wasmade was actually not done in accordance with law, all the otherquestions raised regarding the merits of the matter, need not be goneinto, at this stage. Therefore, the leave granted has got to be setaside. 27. In the result, the judgement and decree dated 30.4.2009passed by the learned single Judge in C.S.No.862 of 2003 is setaside. The learned trial Judge is directed to issue fresh publicationgiving reasonable time, calling for objections from the personsinterested in the Trust. Accordingly, O.S.A.No.142 of 2009 isdisposed of. The judgement dated 30.4.2009 passed by the learnedSingle Judge dismissing the Application No.5385 of 2003 is set asideand permission is granted to the applicants in Application.No.5385 of2003/ to implead themselves as defendants in the suit and to raiseobjections if any, accordingly, O.S.A.No.143 of 2009 is allowed.Leave granted in Application *No.4934/2003 in C.S.No.862/2003 ishereby revoked, Accordingly, O.S.A.No. 144 of 2009 is allowed. Nocosts. vsi Sd/- Asst.Registrar* 26.8.2009Corrected order to be issued as per order of this court dt.14.9.09in OSA 142 to 144/09.Sd/- Asst.Registrar16.9.2009./true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ToThe Sub Assistant Registrar,Original Side,High Court, Madras To be subsituted the order alreadydespatched on 27.8.2009.+2 cc to M/s.Isaac Mohanlal, Advocate, SR.No.*46839+3 cc to Mr.S.Raghunathan, Advocate, SR.No.37361+1 cc to Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam, Advocate, SR.No.37774 OSA.Nos.142 to 144 of 2009PKB {CO}TP/26.8.2009.EU 18.09.2009.