MR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU Review Appln No.116 of 2023 in O.S.A.No.17 of 2022 Dismissed

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON
07.07.2025 PRONOUNCED ON
25.07.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
Review Appln No.116 of 2023 in O.S.A.No.17 of 2022
& CMP.Nos.1854, 3810, 493, 23188, 13187 of 2024 CMP.No.13750 of 2023
G.Anbazhagan …Review Petitioner/9th respondent
Vs
1.S.Jeyachandran
2.The Advocate General, High Court of Madras, Chennai – 600 040.
3. S.Arunagiri
4. V.Ramanathan5.K.Hemanath
6. R.Prabhakaran
Pachaiyappa’s Trust Board,
Poonamallee High Road,
Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 030.
7. V.Durai Mohan
8.Administrative General and
Official Trustee of Tamilnadu,
High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
… Respondents 2 to 8/ Respondents 2 to 8
PRAYER:- Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC r/w Section 114 of CPC praying that this Court may be pleased to review the order dated 28.04.2023 passed by this Court and dismiss O.S.A.No.17 of 2022.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Mohan Sr., counsel for M/s.S.Sai Shankar in Rev.Appln &
CMP.No.13750/2023 & 23187/2024
Rev.Appln No.101655/2023
Mr.N.Murali Kumaran for
Mr.K.Raja in CMP.Nos.1854 &
3810/2024
Mr.Gouthaman for M/s.Binita S Vainy for CMP.No.493 of 2024
Mr.G.Murugendran for
CMP.No.23188/2024
& Rev.Appl No.165787/2023

For Respondents : Mr.Om Prakash, Sr., counsel for
Mr.M.R.Jothimanian for R8
Mr.R.Sidharth AGP for R2
Mr.A.K.Athiban Vijay for R1
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.)
This Review Application had been filed to review the order dated 28.04.2023 passed by this Court in O.S.A.No.17 of 2022.
2.Mr.T.Mohan, the learned Senior counsel on behalf of the Review petitioner in Rev.A.No.116 of 2023 would concede that the petitioner is satisfied with the orders passed by this Court in the instant Review Application, dated 19.12.2023 and all that, he requests this Court to seek for a direction to Administrator to complete the democratic process of conducting an election to the Board of Trustees of the Trust.
3. Mr.N.Murali Kumaran, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in CMP.Nos.1854 & 3810 of 2024 would vehemently contend that the power of Review under Order XXXVI, Rule 1 of the Madras High
Court Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Madras High Court Letters Patent is only available to review the order on merits and such power does not include the power of passing interim orders pending disposal of the Review Application. He would further submit that even assuming the inherent powers to pass interim orders in a Review Petition pending its disposal, such powers to pass an interim order would get vested only in the third stage i.e., after granting an order under Rule 4 of Order XLVII CPC. He would rely upon the principles laid in the Indian Trust Act, 1882, and he would attack the change of interim Administrator appointed by this Court vide its judgment dated 28.04.2023.
4.Mr.Gowthaman, learned counsel appearing for M/s.Binita Vinay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in CMP.No.493 of 2024, adopting the arguments of Mr.N.Murali Kumaran, the learned Senior counsel, would further contend that the learned Administrator, who was originally appointed by this Court in its order dated 28.04.2023, had performed various functions towards the conduct of election to the Trust and the sudden change in the Administrator would affect the changes in the administration of the college and the Trust made by the Administrator appointed by this Court in its order dated 28.04.2023 and hence, he seeks to implead himself in the Review Application.
5. Mr.G.Murugendran, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in CMP.No.23188 of 2024, seeking to condone the delay in filing the Review Application, would contend that the order of this Court dated 28.04.2023, which had interfered with the order of the learned Single Judge as regards to the scheme as modified by the learned Single Judge, would be detrimental to the interest of the petitioner and the petitioner was satisfied with such modifications. The order was passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of applications and while making any intrusion to the said order, this Court ought to have given notice to all the parties concerned, who were not before the Court. Therefore, he would seek to review of the order.
6. Mr.Om Prakash, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of thelearned AG&OT would submit that the Review Application had been disposed of by this Court in its order dated 19.12.2023, by specifically holding that except the change of Administrator, the rest of the order dated 28.04.2023, remains unaltered. The Review Application was only directed to be listed for filing the report of the learned AG&OT. He would further submit that the Review Application was again listed on 22.12.2023 on the mentioning made by the petitioner in CMP.No.23188 of 2024 indicating that he had also filed a Review of the common judgment made by this Court, dated 28.04.2023. On the said date, a mentioning was also made by one of the impleading applicant bringing to the notice of the Court that he had taken out an impleading application and had also sought for continuation of the earlier Administrator appointed by this Court. This Court after considering the submissions, rejected the request to modify the earlier order dated 19.12.2023, where the change of Administrator was made. He would further submit that the said order came to be tested before the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP Civil Diary No.57435 of 2024. The Hon’ble Apex Court by its order dated 03.01.2025, condoning the delay in the same had dismissed the Special Leave Petition after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner therein. He would submit that even though the same is not a reasoned order, a reading of the same would indicate that the Hon’ble Apex Court after hearing the petitioner was not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. Therefore, the order dated 19.12.2023, read with 22.12.2023 had attained its finality for this Court to revisit the change of Administrator. He would further submit that as the Review Application itself was disposed of as early as on 19.12.2023, the present application to implead themselves in the Review Application should not be entertained.
7. We have heard the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.
8. This Court by its order dated 28.04.2023, had interfered with the orders of the learned Single Judge partially by setting aside the modifications made by the learned Single Judge to the existing scheme. We have noted that earlier a Division Bench while interfering with the earlier order passed by the learned Single Judge and remitting the matter to the learned Single Judge had categorically held that the process held by the then learned Judge was not in conformity with the provision of Section 92 of CPC, violation of the judgment dated 24.09.2008 as the scheme that was modified by the learned Single Judge earlier by a summary procedure denying the opportunity had caused serious prejudice to the appellants therein. This Court in its judgment dated 28.04.2023, had held that the further order after remittance was also in contravention of the observations made by the Division Bench in its order dated 23.12.2020.
9. Being conscious of these developments, for seamless administration while appointing the learned Administrator, we had also directed the learned Administrator to call for the views of the members upon the existing scheme as framed by this Court in its order dated 24.09.2008 and to take appropriate steps in respect of framing a scheme to the Trust, if it is found necessary. We had also left it open to the learned Administrator to do the needful for holding election to the office of the Trust. It has also been brought on record that paper publications were effected calling for views as directed by this Court and responses from public have also been received by the learned Administrator.
10. The learned Administrator appointed by this Court in its order dated 28.04.2023, was replaced by an other retired Judge of this Court in the order dated 19.12.2023. When the matter was listed for further hearing on 22.12.2023, this Court had declined to modify the earlier order dated 19.12.2023 and reiterated its appointment made on 19.12.2023. The said order had been subject matter of an appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court and as rightly pointed out by Mr.Om.Prakash, learned Senior counsel, the said Special Leave Petition had even though been simpliciter dismissed, the same has been made after hearing the petitioner therein, which would only bring us to a conclusion that the Hon’ble Apex Court had considered the matter on merits and dismissed the SLP, however not assigning reasons, probably felt not worth to assign any reason.
11. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the learned Administrator appointed by this Court in its order dated 19.12.2023, had being in effective administration of the Trust for the past 18 months. That apart, as rightly pointed out by Mr.Om Prakash, the learned Senior counsel, this Court on 19.12.2023, had infact disposed of the Review Application No.116 of 2023 by holding that the directions issued in the judgment dated 28.04.2023, remains unaltered. Hence, the impleading applications filed in a disposed Review petition cannot be entertained.
12. The Petitions pray for seeking for condoning the delay, need not be entertained, as the reasons for the review was already considered by this Court in its order dated 19.12.2023 and the grounds which have been raised now, are also the same, which were raised in Review Application No.116 of 2023.
13. Further we had also issued directions to the learned Administrator
to call for the views of the members with regard to the scheme, as it was framed by this Court in the year 2008 and the petitioners in
CMP.Nos.23188 & 23187 of 2024 can always approach the learned Administrator suggesting their views and thereafter, the Administrator would take a call as directed in the order dated 28.04.2023.
14. We are also of the firm view that the elections to the Trust would have to be conducted as per the Bye-law. Various members have come before this Court seeking modification of the scheme made by this Court in the year 2008. This Court has also directed the learned Administrator to call for the views of the members of the Trust on the scheme as made by this Court in the year 2008. As stated supra, the learned Administrator had also called for the views of the members and we are appraised that responses have also been received from the members.
15. In such view of the matter, the following orders are passed:-
a) CMP.Nos.1854, 3810 & 493 of 2024, seeking to
implead are dismissed as not maintainable;
b)CMP.Nos.23187 & 23188 of 2024 shall stand
dismissed;
c) The learned Administrator shall file a report with regard to the responses received, pursuant to the issuance of advertisement calling for views of the members of the Trust on the modification of the scheme as framed by this Court in the year 2008. Such report shall be placed before this Court within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
d) Registry is directed to list the matter on receipt of the report to be filed by the learned Administrator as directed above.

(G.J.,J.) (K.B., J.)
25.07.2024
Index :Yes/No
Speaking order :Yes/No Neutral Citation :Yes/No pbn 
G.JAYACHANDRAN., J. & K.KUMARESH BABU ,J.
Pbn
Delivery Order in
Review Appln No.116 of 2023 in O.S.A.No.17 of 2022
& CMP.Nos.1854, 3810, 493, 23188, 13187 of 2024
CMP.No.13750 of 2023
25.07.2025