Madras High Court
Operation Mercy India Foundation ... vs Good Shepherd Matriculation ... on 23 July, 2021
C.R.P.(PD) No.2164 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.R.P.(PD) No. 2164 of 2020
Operation Mercy India Foundation (OMIF),
Having its registered Office at: 2-2-96,
Logos Bhavan, Medchal, Jeedimetla Village,
Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal District,
Secunderabad, Telangana – 500 067, India.
Through
Col.Jeyaraj Azaria, (Retd) Age:62 years,
S/o.Rathinam Jeyaraj,
Senior Manager of
Good Shepherd Schools of Tamil Nadu ..Petitioner
vs.
Good Shepherd Matriculation Schools,
Rep.by its Correspondent
S.Selvakumar, S/o.Samydass,
R/o.Dharamanayaken Pattarai Village,
Vaiyavoor Post, Kanchipuram Taluk and District,
Tamil Nadu. .. Respondent
(Cause title amended vide Court Order dated 04.12.2020 made in
C.M.P.No.13274 of 2020 in C.R.P.Sr.80952 of 2020 by TKRJ)
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD) No.2164 of 2020
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, calling for the records of the O.S.No.385/2019 on
the file of Sub-Ordinate Court, Kanchipuram and strike off the plaint.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Mani Shankar
Standing Counsel
for A.Ashwin Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.A.Sundaravadhanan
ORDER
The Revision Petition has been filed by the defendant in
O.S.No.385 of 2019, now pending before the Sub-Ordinate Court,
Kanchipuram.
2. The said Original Suit has been filed by the respondent / Good
Shepherd Matriculation School represented by S.Selvakumar, claiming to
be the Correspondent at Vaiyavoor, Kanchipuram, against the Revision
Petitioner / Operation Mobilisation India represented by its Director
Jayaraj Soloman Raja, seeking a judgment and decree in the nature of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD) No.2164 of 2020
permanent injunction against the defendant or anybody acting under the
defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit property, until he is evicted by due process of law
and also for costs of the suit.
3. The Schedule of the property has been given as land in Survey
No.536 – Acres 5.00 cents and a school building thereon with well and
service connection No.116 with security deposit in Vaiyavoor Village,
Kanchipuram Firka, Kanchipuram Taluk in Kanchipuram District. In the
plaint, it has been stated that the cause of action for instituting the suit
arose on 13.03.2012, when a registered lease deed was executed between
the plaintiff and the defendant for a period of 30 years to run the
educational institution and on 16.11.2019, when a complaint was lodged
by the plaintiff before the Taluk Police Station, in view of various threats
issued on various dates by the defendants.
4. The plaint is very short with just four paragraphs. In the first
paragraph, the plaintiff had been described and in the second paragraph,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD) No.2164 of 2020
the defendant had been described and in the third paragraph, it has been
stated that the plaintiff is a tenant of the suit premises under a regular
lease deed dated 13.03.2012 and that a lease for 30 years for the period
from 13.03.2012 to 13.03.2041 had been entered on an annual lease of
Rs.100/-. It was stated that the tenancy is for non residential purpose
namely to run the educational institution. In the fourth paragraph, it has
been stated that the Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Kanchipuram, has issued
licence to run the school on 25.11.2016. It has been stated that the
original licence is filed along with the plaint and the periodical renewal
of licence had also been issued. It has been further stated that the attitude
of the defendant changed and threatening calls were made. Therefore, on
16.11.2019 a complaint was lodged by the plaintiff before the Taluk
Police Station, who refused to give CSR number. Therefore, an online
complaint was lodged by the plaintiff and receipt for the same is filed
along with the plaint. The plaintiff claimed that they are entitled for
protection as a tenant under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and
Responsibilities of Landlord and Tenant Act, 2017. The plaintiff,
therefore, stated that they were obliged to file the suit for permanent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD) No.2164 of 2020
injunction against the defendant seeking the relief as above. Along with
the plaint, five documents have been filed. The first document was a
certified copy of the lease deed dated 13.03.2012, the second document
was the original licence issued by the Tahsildar, Taluk Office,
Kanchipuram, on 02.11.2016. The third document was the original
proceedings issued by the Joint Director of Matriculation School, Tamil
Nadu, dated 06.10.2018, the fourth document was a xerox copy of the
complaint dated 16.11.2019 and the fifth document was
acknowledgement for the said complaint. The plaint had been verified by
the Correspondent, Good Shephered Matriculation School, who had also
signed the plaint namely S.Selvakumar.
5. It must be kept in mind that the plaintiff had sought the relief of
permanent injunction to protect possession until “he” is evicted by due
process of law. This will naturally indicate that it is not the plaintiff /
Good Shephered Matriculation School, which seeks protection, but rather
the correspondent, S.Selvakumar, who primarily seeks protection.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD) No.2164 of 2020
6. The agreement of lease deed has to be examined to determine
the nature of relationship between the plaintiff and defendant. The lease
deed is a registered document executed on 13.03.2012, for a period of 30
years.
7. I am not interested in any of the covenants of the lease deed but
rather only to the parties to the document. The lease had been entered
into between Operation Mobilisation India, a Charitable Company
represented by its Director Mr.Jayaraj Soloman Raja and Good
Shephered Matriculation School in Kanchipuram Taluk in Kanchipuram,
represented by its Correspondent, Mr.S.Selvakumar. The lessor is,
therefore, Operation Mobilisation India and the lessee is Good Shephered
Matriculation School. Incidentally, since neither the said named lessor
nor the named lessee can by any stretch of imagination sign any
document and they have to be represented by some responsible person
and for that purpose, the lessor had been represented by its director
Mr.Jayaraj Soloman Raja and the lessee had been represented by its
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD) No.2164 of 2020
correspondent, Mr.S.Selvakumar. Any breach of the covenants or an
attempt for any breach of the covenants, can be complained only by the
lessor or lessee. The officials, who had been shown as representing the
lessor and lessee may or may not change or may even be removed or
replaced during the course of the said 30 years. It is not imperative that
they should be constant. The lease deed, has not granted any specific
rights to the named individuals - as lessor and lessee. The rights and
obligations are only with Operation Mobilisation India and with Good
Shephered Matriculation School.
8. Subsequent to the execution of the lease deed, the school
namely Good Shephered Matriculation School commenced its operations
and it is stated to be running with much credit at the said premises. But,
however, serious undercurrents developed to with respect to the position
of Mr.S.Selvakumar, as a correspondent. He had also been termed as the
correspondent in the plaint, and this nomenclature or this status is the
primary reason why this Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD) No.2164 of 2020
9. It is the contention of the Revision Petitioner that
Mr.S.Selvakumar, has no manner of right or interest to represent Good
Shephered Matriculation School. It is stated that he had been appointed
only as a 'staff' and he had been given additional responsibilities as an
'Operations Manager' for Puducherry Region. His work was therefore, till
that particular point of time, actually recognised and appreciated. But for
various other reasons, his appointment as a 'staff' also came to be
terminated. It is therefore, the contention of the Revision Petitioner that
owing to such termination S.Selvakumar, cannot continue to call himself
as a 'correspondent' of the said school. It is also stated that since he is not
an employee, he cannot further claim to represent the School either as a
'correspondent' or as a staff or in any other capacity.
10. It is, therefore, pointed out that the entire suit is vexatious. It is
claimed that hiding behind the screen of the School, S.Selvakumar, had
instituted the suit to protect his position as a staff / correspondent /
Project Manager but certainly not to protect the interest of the School. It
is also pointed out during the course of arguments that a correspondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD) No.2164 of 2020
had actually been appointed for the School and who had also taken
charge, but who was physically prevented from entering into the school
premises by S.Selvakumar. Therefore, it is evident that S.Selvakumar has
an axe to grind against the Revision Petitioner in his personal capacity.
11. The School namely Good Shepherd Matriculation School is a
victim of this conflict and had been dragged into the lis and had been
shown as a plaintiff. This is the reason why the Revision Petition has
been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to strike off the
plaint. That there are very serious differences of opinion between those
in Management of the Revision Petitioner and S.Selvakumar, is evident
by the documents filed by either side which include complaints, which
include counter complaints, which also includes recommendations for
prosecution and similar such documents over which I am not entering
into a discussion.
12. The only aspect to be examined is maintainability of the suit on
the basis of the cause of action paragraph and whether the suit would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD) No.2164 of 2020
stand the judicial scrutiny of this Court.
13. Arguments have been advanced by Mr.C.Mani Shankar,
learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revision Petitioner
and by Mr.A.Sundaravadhanan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent.
14. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred as plaintiff
and defendant. The defendant is the Revision Petitioner herein and the
plaintiff is the respondent.
15. A lease deed had been executed by Operation Mobilisation
India. The suit in O.S.No.385 of 2019 had been filed against Operation
Mobilisation India. But the Revision Petition has been filed by the
Operation Mercy India Foundation. This fact has been pointed out by
Mr.A.Sundaravadhanan, learned counsel who stated that a different
entity is now before this Court seeking to strike off the plaint. To this,
my attention has been drawn to a Certificate of Incorporation, consequent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD) No.2164 of 2020
to Change of Name issued by the Registrar of Companies, stating that
Operation Mobilisation India, has changed its name to Operation Mercy
India Foundation. This certificate had been issued on 24.11.2006.
16. Mr.A.Sundaravadanan, learned counsel, however pointed out
the date of the certificate and stated that the lease had been entered into
by the Operation Mobilisation India. It is however pointed out by
Mr.C.Mani Shankar, learned Senior Counsel that the cause title in the
Revision had been permitted to be accepted by a judicial order dated
04.12.2020, passed by this Court in C.M.P.No.13274 of 2020.
17. Be that as it may, once again I am not entering into a deep
discussion on that particular aspect. Let me now concentrate on the
plaint which has been filed. It is admitted that as against S.Selvakumar,
termination order has been passed, terminating him as a 'staff', by order
dated 02.12.2019 issued by the Revision Petitioner herein. It is therefore
stated that S.Selvakumar is no longer a staff to represent the plaintiff in
this suit. He cannot represent the plaintiff, more specifically, as a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD) No.2164 of 2020
'correspondent'. He may have his individual grievances against the
defendant. He can always institute a suit in his individual name seeking
redressal. But he cannot take advantage of the name of the school and
plead innocence and ignorance and seek indulgence. That cannot be
permitted.
18. It is also seen from the records that the entire service benefits
have also been paid to S.Selvakumar, consequent to his termination.
Officials of the Education Department have also been informed about his
termination. A new correspondent has also been appointed for the
School.
19. It is, therefore, very strenuously argued by Mr.C.Mani
Shankar, learned Senior Counsel, that the entire frame of the suit cannot
withstand scrutiny and the plaint will have necessarily have to be struck
off. It is also pointed out that there is no cause of action for the defendant
to disturb the functioning of the school. The lease deed subsists and there
is every reason to understand that the lease deed would continue to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD) No.2164 of 2020
subsist. As a matter of fact, no specific date had been given by the
plaintiff in the cause of action paragraph indicating when threat was held
out by the defendant. It is therefore, contended that an imaginary cause of
action has been created by plaintiff and the suit has been instituted, not
keeping in mind the interest of the school but rather keeping in mind only
the personal interest of S.Selvakumar. I find much force in such
contention.
20. A second reading of the plaint, again reveals that in the cause
of action paragraph, it had been stated that on various dates there have
been threats by the defendant. A specific date has to be given to seek an
order of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering
with peaceful possession. A complaint has been lodged on 16.07.2019
but as is always a case, any complaint is a self serving document created
for the benefit of the complainant alone. A reading of the plaint, does not
disclose any cause of action.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD) No.2164 of 2020
21. It is stated by Mr.C.Mani Shankar, learned Senior Counsel
that the Revision Petitioner has no intention at all to interfere with the
functioning of the School. If S.Selvakumar, has any grievances, he can
always approach a Court of law and seek necessary remedies but he
cannot hide behind the screen of the school to protect his individual
rights and his individual status and proclaim himself as a 'correspondent',
when as a matter of fact he had been removed even as a 'staff'.
22. In 1977 (4) SCC page 467 in the case of T.Arivandandam vs.
T.V.Satyapal and Another, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
“2.Here is an audacious application by a
determined engineer of fake litigations asking for special
leave to appeal against an order of the High Court on an
interlocutory application for injunction. The sharp
practice or legal legerdemain of the petitioner, who is
the son of the 2nd respondent, stultifies the court process
and makes a decree with judicial seals brutum fulmen.
The long arm of the law must throttle such litigative
caricatures if the confidence and creditability of the
community in the judicature is to survive.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD) No.2164 of 2020
23. In K.Akbar Ali vs. K.Umar Khan and others reported in 2021
SCC online SC 238, it was held as follows:
“... clever drafting creating illusions of cause of
action are not permitted in law and a clear right to sue
should be shown in the plaint. Similarly the Court must
see that the bar in law of the suit is not camouflaged by
devious and clever drafting of the plaint... the Court has
the inherent power to see that frivolous or vexatious
litigations are not allowed to consume the time of the
Court.”
24. In the instant case, the plaint in O.S.No. 385 of 2019, does not
disclose any cause of action. It has been instituted by an individual using
the plaintiff as a screen to protect his own alleged status to continue to
act as a 'correspondent', when actually he had even been dismissed as a
'staff'.
25. The plaint in O.S.No.385 of 2019 now pending on the file of
Subordinate Court, Kanchipuram, is directed to struck off and necessary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD) No.2164 of 2020
entries must also made in the Suit Register by the Subordinate Court at
Kancheepuram with relation to O.S.No.385 of 2019.
26. The Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
23.07.2021
Pns
Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
The Sub-Ordinate Court, Kanchipuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD) No.2164 of 2020
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J
Pns
C.R.P.(PD) No. 2164 of 2020
23.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
