Shri Panch Agni Akahada Varansi ... vs Sree Prakashchand Guru ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3250 MP

                                  -1-

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE

                                BEFORE
                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA

                     ON THE 8th OF MARCH, 2022

                   MISC. PETITION No. 1410 of 2020

  Between:-
  SHRI PANCH AGNI AKAHADA VARANSI
  THR. SHREE MAHANT MUKUNDANAD GURU
  BHAGWATINAND BRAHMACHARI
  PRESIDENT BRAHMANADDHAM
  CHAPDHALA TEH. JUNAGARH,
  DISTRICT VISAVADAR (GUJARAT)
                                                        .....PETITIONER
  (BY SHRI A. S. PARIHAR, ADVOCATE)

  AND

1. SREE PRAKASHCHAND GURU
   YOGESHWARANAND BRAHMACHARI,
   AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
   OCCUPATION: SADHU,
   GRAM MANDLESHWAR,
   TEH. KHATEGAON,
   DISTRICT DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. THE STATE OF MP
   THROUGH COLLECTOR,
   COLLECTOR OFFICE DEWAS,
   DISTRICT DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
  (R.NO.1 BY SHRI J. B. MEHTA, ADVOCATE)

      This Misc. Petition coming on this day, the court passed the

following:

                              ORDER

Both the parties are heard finally.

The petitioner has filed present petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India being aggrieved by the impugned order dated

16/01/2020 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Khategaon, District Dewas

in Civil Suit No.96-A/2019, whereby an application preferred under

Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the CPC has been

dismissed.

The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent / plaintiff

has filed a civil suit against the petitioner / defendant, wherein an

application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC has been filed by the

petitioner for deleting the name of defendant No.2, who has wrongly

been arrayed as a defendant in the instant suit. But by the impugned

order dated 16/01/2020, the trial Court has dismissed the said

application as the defendant No.2 has been wrongly made party, it

should be implicated as a party through Secretary as per the bye-laws

of the Trust.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Secretary is

duly authorized to conduct and look after the day to day proceeding of

the Trust, therefore, Secretary is a necessary and proper property.

Impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is without application

of mind and is one sided. Impugned order is erroneous, unjustified and

illegal. Hence, he prays that the impugned order be set aside and

insert the name of Secretary in place of defendant No.2.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the

prayer and prays for its rejection by supporting the order impugned.

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the matter and

also taking note of the fact that petitioner did not produce any bye-laws

of the concerned Trust. Normally Sabhapati of the Trust is Chairperson

of the said Institution and being the head of the Institution, he is also

responsible for day to day working of the concern Trust. Trial Court has

implemented all the those persons, who appears to be just, proper and

necessary parties, therefore, this Court does not find any reason to

interfere with the impugned order. The order passed by the trial Court

does not suffer from any jurisdictional error nor it can be said that it is

a perverse order.

Even otherwise, the scope of interference in exercise of

jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India is limited. The

Supreme court in the matter of Shalini Shyam Shetty and another

Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 has held

that High court in exercise of its power of superintendence cannot

interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another

view than the one taken by the tribunals or courts subordinate to it, is

a possible view. The High court can exercise this power when there

has been a patent perversity in the orders of tribunals and courts

subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure

of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.

In light of the aforesaid judgment, as no patent illegality has

been committed by the trial court and the order passed by the trial

court does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, this Court does not

find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated

16/01/2020. Accordingly, the petition sans merits and is hereby,

dismissed.

Certified copy as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Tej Digitally signed by TEJPRAKASH VYAS Date: 2022.03.08 19:22:02 +05'30'