Necessary party impleadment and fair hearing protected managerial rights; interlocutory orders passed without hearing were set aside.

Availability of an efficacious remedy under the Code of Civil Procedure restrained writ interference with the plaint and suit proceedings, so the request to quash the civil suit was rejected. However, where the real controversy concerned the lawful managerial rights of a person kept out of the suit, that person was a necessary party and the refusal to implead him, together with an interim injunction passed without hearing him, was vulnerable. The impugned interlocutory orders were therefore set aside, impleadment was allowed, and the matter was directed to be reconsidered afresh after hearing the affected party.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ court should interfere to quash the plaint and the proceedings in the civil suit in view of the availability of statutory remedies; (ii) Whether the order refusing impleadment and the interim injunction order could be sustained where the dispute directly concerned the managerial rights of a person kept out of the suit.

Issue (i): Whether the writ court should interfere to quash the plaint and the proceedings in the civil suit in view of the availability of statutory remedies.

Analysis: The availability of an efficacious remedy under the Code of Civil Procedure was treated as a relevant restraint on the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The plaint and the suit proceedings were not interfered with because the petitioners could pursue the remedies available before the civil court, including challenge to the plaint and injunction order through the statutory framework.

Conclusion: The prayer to quash the plaint and the entire suit proceedings was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the order refusing impleadment and the interim injunction order could be sustained where the dispute directly concerned the managerial rights of a person kept out of the suit.

Analysis: The dispute turned on who was the lawful manager of the institution, and that issue could not be effectively determined without hearing the person asserting that office. The presence of that person was necessary for complete and effective adjudication, and the civil court erred in relying on the plaintiff's choice of parties to refuse impleadment. The interim injunction was also passed without hearing the person whose position was directly affected, which rendered the orders vulnerable. The court therefore interfered to correct the procedural injustice and directed a fresh consideration after impleadment and transfer to a competent court.

Conclusion: The orders dated 4-4-1994 and 5-4-1994 were quashed, impleadment was allowed, and the matter was transferred for fresh consideration.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded only in part: the civil suit itself was left intact, but the impugned interlocutory orders were set aside and the affected party was to be heard afresh before further proceedings continued.

Ratio Decidendi: Where adjudication of the real controversy requires the presence of a party whose legal interest is directly affected, the court may and should order impleadment, and orders passed without hearing such necessary party are liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction notwithstanding the availability of other remedies.

---