Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: Ch/s No. 369/2018 in S.C.Suit No. 4893/2012 1 Order.
MHCC010026722018
Presented on : 21-02-2018
Registered on : 21-02-2018
Decided on : 06-04-2023
Duration : 05Y:1M:16D
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 369 OF 2018
IN
S. C. SUIT NO. 4893 OF 2012
1.Shri. Rishabh R. Ruia
2.Smt. Seema R. Ruia
3.Shri. Manish R. Ruia
4.Shri. Bhupendranath Jain )...Applicants
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Purushottam Gopiram Ruia and Ors )...Plaintiffs
Versus
Dr. Maniklal Shrinivas Ruia
Alias Dr. M. S. Ruia and Ors )...Defendants
And
Charity Commissioner )...Respondent
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI R.R.BHAGWAT.
(COURT ROOM NO.66).
DATE : 06th APRIL, 2023.
Smt. Rita R. Pawar instructed by Shri P. G. Lad, Learned Advocate for
the applicants/plaintiffs.
Shri. Dipen Furia, Learned Advocate for defendants.
-- 1 of 5 --
Ch/s No. 369/2018 in S.C.Suit No. 4893/2012 2 Order.
ORDER
1. Plaintiff no.2 has filed the Chamber Summons for
amendment in the plaint as per Order VI Rule 17 of The Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. Perused Chamber Summons. I have gone through the
suit proceedings.
2. Heard Learned Counsel Smt. R. R. Pawar for the plaintiffs
and Learned Counsel Shri. Dipen Furia for the defendants.
3. On perusal of the record, it appears that plaintiff No. 1 and
2 and defendants No. 1 to 5 are trustees of plaintiff No. 3 trust. The
contents of affidavit in support reveals that plaintiff No. 1 expired on
01.05.2015 as per the Death Certificate ExhibitI. It is stated in
Paragraph no. 2 of affidavit in support that meeting of plaintiff No. 3
trust was held on 01.12.2015 and proposed plaintiffs No. 3 to 6 were
appointed as trustees of plaintiff No. 3 trust. It is also intended to
rename plaintiff No. 2 and 3 as plaintiff No. 1 and 2 and also to delete
the name of plaintiff No. 1.
4. Learned Counsel Shri Dipen Furia drew attention of the
Court towards documents filed with list of documents on 01.10.2022 by
the plaintiffs. According to him, plaintiff No. 2 was the sole trustee who
had attended the meeting dated 01.12.2015 and other persons
attending the meeting were special invitees. The defendants were not
present in the meeting. By questioning the legality of the meeting as per
which proposed plaintiffs are appointed as trustees, he submitted that
there is no need to make these persons as plaintiffs to the suit
proceeding.
5. On the contrary, Learned Counsel Rita R. Pawar for the
plaintiffs submitted that the Chairman or Trustee can call the meeting
-- 2 of 5 --
Ch/s No. 369/2018 in S.C.Suit No. 4893/2012 3 Order.
and secondly Agenda of the meeting was to appoint new trustees.
Change report is filed.
6. Considering rival contentions and material on record, it
appears that sole trustee of plaintiff No. 3 trust has attempted to
increase the number of trustees by conducting the meeting in presence
of special invitees. Special invitees cannot be said to have any authority
or voice to determine the issue of appointment of trustees. When
appointment of the proposed plaintiffs as trustees of plaintiff No.3 is a
matter of dispute, it is not appropriate to allow them to represent
interest of plaintiff No.3 trust. Even otherwise, present suit demonstrate
the dispute between trustees inter se. In such circumstances, one trustee
is not justified in increasing number of trustees favouring him to change
the position materially without following due process of law.
7. Learned Counsel Rita R. Pawar has relied upon
observations of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Abaji
Daulata Yadav and Ors. Vs. Dhondiram Jagedevrao Yadav and Ors.
MANU/MH/0688/1993 and submitted that proposed plaintiffs can be
made party to the suit without consent of the Charity Commissioner.
Observations in this citation show that respondent No.14 was already
recognized by the Charity Commissioner as a trustee in the place of
original respondent No.4. In the present matter, the plaintiffs have not
brought on record any material to show that proposed plaintiffs were
recognized by the Charity Commissioner as a trustees. For this reason,
there is no scope to apply ratio in this citation to the case in hand.
8. In the result, the Chamber Summons can be allowed partly
for deleting name of deceased plaintiff No.1. Plaintiffs No 2 and 3 are
not required to be referred with different ordinal number after demise
of plaintiff No.1. It is for the reason that original position of the parties
-- 3 of 5 --
Ch/s No. 369/2018 in S.C.Suit No. 4893/2012 4 Order.
to the suit is required to be continued for reference purpose while
pointing out past developments in the matter. Hence I pass following
order :
ORDER
1. Chamber Summons No. 369/2018 is partly allowed in
terms of prayer clause (a) for limited purpose of deleting
the name of deceased plaintiff No.1.
2. The plaintiff No. 2 is directed to carry out amendment in
plaint on or before next date of hearing.
3. Proceeding of Ch/s No. 369/2018 is closed.
(SHRI. R.R.BHAGWAT)
Judge,
City Civil Court,
(Court Room No.66)
Date : 06/04/2023 Mumbai.
1. Dictated on : 06/04/2023
2. Transcribed on : 10/04/2023 (7th,8th,9th April being Holidays)
3. Draft submitted on : 10/04/2023
4. Checked and signed on : 11/04/2023.
5. Delivered to Certified :
Copy Section on
-- 4 of 5 --
Ch/s No. 369/2018 in S.C.Suit No. 4893/2012 5 Order.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER (L.G)
12/04/2023 10.50 am Mr. Mohit M. Patange
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) HHJ Shri R.R.Bhagwat.
(Court Room No.66).
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 06/04/2023
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 11/04/2023
Judgment/Order uploaded on 12/04/2023
-- 5 of 5 --