JUDGMENT

Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 14.08.2019 passed by District Judge, Dungarpur, whereby, the appeal filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 has been allowed and the order dated 17.07.2019 passed by Additional Senior Civil judge, Dungarpur under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been set aside.

2. A suit was filed by petitioner-plaintiff for declaration and permanent & mandatory injunction in relation to one Chauhan Hari Singh Sewa Sansthan Pith, District Dungarpur, inter alia, claiming declaration that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have been duly expelled and, therefore, the meeting dated 25.05.2016 held by them was illegal, all the actions taken by defendants after 25.05.2016 be declared null & void and the said defendants be declared ineligible to work in any society. Alongwith the suit, an application seeking temporary injunction was also filed.

3. The application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 CPC was resisted by the defendants and a counter application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 CPC was filed seeking various directions against the petitioner and a restraint against him from interfering with working of the society.

4. The trial court by its order dated 17.07.2019 came to the conclusion that in the meeting dated 24.04.2016 all the 15 members present unanimously expelled respondent Nos.1 to 3 from the membership and the said decision was confirmed in meeting dated 01.05.2016 and, therefore, the expulsion was legal and the defendants had no right to participate in the working of the institution.

5. Issues pertaining to balance of convenience and irreparable injury were also found in favour of the plaintiff. Based on which, it was ordered that till disposal of the suit the defendants would not interfere directly or indirectly in the working of the College and that the plaintiff institution through its working Committee and General Body would be entitled to take decisions for the benefit of the institution.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants filed an appeal under Order XLIII CPC.

7. The appellate court by its order dated 14.08.2019 came to the conclusion that the trial court though found that the expulsion of the appellants was in accordance with the constitution, however, as the said decision was not approved by the Subregistrar, the decision taken was not as per the bylaws and, therefore, there was no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner and consequently allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 17.07.2019 and directed that no interference be done in the working of the institution.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellate court was not justified in setting aside the order passed by the trial court. Submissions were made that foundational reason indicated by the appellate court that expulsion has not been approved by the Sub-registrar is baseless, inasmuch as, there is no provision in law for seeking such approval and the observations made by the Sub-registrar were without jurisdiction. For the nature of observations made by him and interference in this regard, the said Sub-registrar was also proceeded departmentally and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

9. With reference to the material available on record submissions were made that the respondents were not entitled to any relief and, therefore, the order passed by the appellate court deserves to be quashed and set aside.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the order impugned. It was submitted that the entire action of the petitioner in expelling the respondents was contrary to the constitution of the Society, wherein, the said members had no right to expel the respondents from membership and, as such, the appellate court was justified in setting aside the order impugned, which order does not call for any interference.

11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have