M.Rajkumar v. G.Manimekalai
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 19.10.2011CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAMCIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1823 of 2011andMISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011M.Rajkumar .. Petitioner Vs.G.Manimekalai.. Respondent Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated05.08.2011 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.42 of 2010 by the FastTrack Court, Dindigul reversing the fair and decretal order dated21.10.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.355 of 2010 in OriginalSuit No.143 of 2010 by the Sub Court, Palani. For Petitioner: Mr.R.Vijayakumar For Respondent: Mr.H.Lakshmi ShankarORDERThe order dated 05.08.2011 passed in Civil Miscellaneous AppealNo.42 of 2010 by the Fast Track Court, Dindigul is being challenged inthe present Civil Revision Petition.
The respondent herein and another as plaintiffs have institutedOriginal Suit No.143 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Palani prayingto remove the defendant therein from trusteeship. The defendant hasfiled written statement, wherein he made a counter-claim to the effectthat the first plaintiff should not act as trustee of the trust mentionedin the plaint. In Original Suit No.143 of 2010, the defendant aspetitioner has filed Interlocutory Application No.355 of 2010 under OrderXXXIX, Rules 1 to 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 so as to deterthe respondent therein, from continuing as Secretary of the trustmentioned in the plaint. The trial Court has allowed the same. Againstthe order passed by the trial Court, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.42 of2010 has been preferred on the file of the Fast Track Court, Dindigul andthe same has been allowed and ultimately dismissed InterlocutoryApplication No.355 of 2010. Against the order passed in CivilMiscellaneous Appeal No.42 of 2010, the present Civil Revision Petitionhas been filed.
The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner hascontended that the respondent herein/first plaintiff is not having locusstandi to act as a trustee and further she is entitled to keep her posttill 02.02.2011 and under the said circumstances the order passed in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.42 of 2010 is liable to be set aside andthe order passed in Interlocutory Application No.355 of 2010 is liable tobe restored. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondenthas contended that in the Trust Deed after period is over board meetingshould be convened so as to select Secretary and under the saidcircumstances the relief sought for in Interlocutory Application No.355of 2010 cannot be granted.5. It is seen from the records that in Original Suit No.143 of2010 the revision petitioner/petitioner/defendant has filed writtenstatement. Since in Original Suit No.143 of 2010, written statement hasbeen filed, the same is ready for conducting trial. In Original SuitNo.143 of 2010, it is prayed to the effect that the defendant thereinshould be removed from trusteeship. Considering the nature of the reliefsought for in Original Suit No.143 of 2010 as well as the nature of thecounter-claim made in the written statement filed on the side of therevision petitioner/petitioner/defendant, this Court is of the view togive necessary direction to the trial Court to dispose of Original SuitNo.143 of 2010. under the said circumstances, the question involved in Interlocutory Application No.355 of 2010 need not be decided. 6. With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition isdisposed of without costs. The Sub Court, Palani is strictly directed todispose of Original Suit No.143 of 2010 before the end of December, 2011without giving adherence to the orders passed in InterlocutoryApplication No.355 of 2010 and in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.42 of2010. Sd/-Assitant Registrar (T&P)/True Copy/Sub Assistant RegistrarTo1.The Fast Track Judge, Dindigul. 2. The Subordinate Judge, Palani.+1cc to Mr.H.Lakshmishankar, Advocate, SR.No.36373smnGH : 29.10.2011 : 2p/4cC.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1823 of 2011andM.P(MD)No.1 of 2011
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.