Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Fiji

Singh v Reddy [2011] FJHC 644; HBC0123.2011 (17 August 2011)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Action No HBC 123 of 2011L

BETWEEN:

PREM SINGH, RAKESH PRAMOD KUMAR AND ELLE NARSHEA as lawful Trustees of The Bhartiya Mitra Mandali, The Managing Authority of Tilak High School.
Plaintiffs

AND:

GANGA REDDY, JAGDISH SINGH, SUREND VENKAT, DAYA NAND, NAVEEN KUMAR, ANIL PRASAD, JANEND SINGH, RAKESH CHAND, SATYA DASS, KUMAR SAMI NAICKER, PRAKASH NAIR as office bearers and members of The Bhartiya Mitra Mandali Management Board.
Defendants

Appearances:
Natasha Khan for the Plaintiff
Iqbal Khan & Ass.[Q.Vakanavanua] for the Defendants

ORDER OF THE COURT

Parties informed that the Acting Deputy Registrar has signed and issued an order by error in stating that the interim injunction issued as per relief (1) of the Ex parte Notice of Motion of 10/8/2011 is issued till "Further order of Court" when it was issued only for 7 days till 17/8/2011, as such the said order issued was recalled and the copy served on the Defendant as well as the 3 copies of the Plaintiff and the record original in the file is now crossed and cancelled and recalled by Court by exercising the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to remedy the inadvertent error of the Plaintiff's Solicitor in supplying a copy in error as well as the Acting Deputy Registrar in issuing same without comparing with the Order made by Court.

However, there is a copy of the said order served on the Divisional Education Officer Western according to the Plaintiffs Solicitor, as such, it is ordered by this Court that a Notice be issued to the Divisional Education Officer Western to consider the said order as an order issued by error by the Acting Deputy Registrar and to return same to Court for cancellation immediately.

As such upon recall of the Copy of the order served on the Divisional Education Officer Western, the Acting Deputy Registrar to re-issue amended order, setting out the order as made on 10/8/2011 by this Court.

Defendants counsel moves for 28 days to reply and oppose the orders sought by the Plaintiffs in the Originating Summons and in opposition to the interim injunction issued on 10/8/2011.

Most of the Defendants are present in Court as their names being called out at the commencement today, three of the Defendants are not present in person today. However Iqbal Khan & Associates appear for all the Defendants. Ms Vokanavanua for the Defendants, state that they are willing to give an undertaking to maintain the status quo of the Trustees to function as the Trustee (Plaintiffs) and the Defendants to function as the Management Board. The Plaintiffs Counsel too inform that they too are willing to give a similar undertaking to maintain the status quo. The parties further undertake not to remove any documents or any goods from the school premises and that any correspondence by either party should be with a copy to the other party. That is any correspondence the parties have with any 3rd Party regarding the business of the school should be with a copy to the other party.

Subject to the aforesaid undertaking by both the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant is given 28 days to file reply and affidavit in opposition. The aforesaid undertaking to be complied with by both parties till further order of this Court, undertaking as aforesaid is explained to the Defendants. The Plaintiff is seeking 7 days thereafter to reply.

As such,

(1) The Defendants to file reply and affidavits in opposition to Originating Summons and interim order before 14 September 2011.

(2) The Plaintiff to reply within 7 days of 14 of September 2011.

(3) The Divisional Education Officer Western to return the order of this Court issued by error by the Acting Deputy Registrar as dated 10/8/2011, and the said notice to issue accordingly – (served by the Plaintiff.)

(4) On the said copy of the order returned by the said Divisional Education Officer Western, the said copy to be submitted to this Court immediately for recall and cancellation.

(5) Both Plaintiffs and Defendants to comply with the undertaking to maintain the status quo as Trustees and Management Board, and to copy all correspondence to 3rd parties to the other party, till further order of this Court.

(6) Parties are at liberty to apply with Notice to the other, within 48 hours.

Mention on 21 September 2011 at 10Am to fix for hearing.

Sgd.
Y.I.Fernando
JUDGE

17/8/2011