Point of Law : It will not be open for plaintiffs to contend that no decree in counter-claim be passed in absence of subsequent purchasers - Therefore, non-impleading the subsequent purchasers as defendants on the objection raised by plaintiffs shall be at the risk of the plaintiffs.

JUDGMENT :

SATYEN VAIDYA, J.

1. By way of instant petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 14.02.2022, Annexure P-11, passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Solan, District Solan, H.P. whereby the application of the petitioner herein under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that respondent No. 2 is a Society registered under the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, (for short “The Society”) having its own Rules and Bye-laws. The primary objective of the Society is to carry out all types of transport business for transporting goods which includes plying of trucks, tippers, trailers and any other type of public vehicle. Besides this, the Society has been constituted to provide business only for land-loosers of the Panchayats within whose jurisdiction the lands were utilized for the Gujarat Ambuja Cement Project. Landloosers includes hereditary permanent residents of the area under operation of the Society.

3. Respondent No. 1 was a member of the Society. He was assigned token No. B-812 and his Vehicle No. HP-51B-0557 was being operated under the aegis of the Society. Respondent No. 1 had purchased the aforesaid vehicle by taking financial assistance from the Finance Company. He defaulted in payments of instalments, as a consequence of which, the Finance Company re-possessed the vehicle on 04.07.2011 and subsequently auctioned the same to realize its due amount. Thus, the petitioner was unable to ply any vehicle under the token of membership allotted to him by the Society.

4. On 08.01.2014, respondent No. 1 had agreed to transfer the membership of the Society in favour of the petitioner. The Managing Committee of the Society passed a resolution on 08.02.2014 whereby the membership of respondent No. 1 was cancelled for his inability to ply any vehicle against said membership despite repeated reminders. The resolution was approved by the General House on 27.04.2014.

5. Respondent No. 1 claims that he had submitted an application to the Society praying for grant of permission to ply one multi axle truck and one six tyre truck. He received a communication dated 16.03.2021 from the Society informing him that his membership stood cancelled, as aforesaid and his request could not be allowed.

6. Aggrieved against the communication dated 16.03.2021 and his termination/expulsion from the Society, respondent No. 1 has preferred an appeal under Section 93 of the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act (for short ‘the Act’), before the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Solan, District Solan, H.P. During the pendency of the appeal of respondent No. 1, an application was filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleading him as party to the appeal. The application was preferred on the premise that the petitioner was a necessary party to the appeal as respondent No. 1 had transferred his membership alongwith token in favour of the petitioner on 08.01.2014, whereafter respondent No. 1 had ceased to be the member of the Society and, therefore, the question of termination of membership of respondent No. 1 by the Society did not arise. It was further averred that respondent No. 1 was claiming himself to be the member of the Society by concealing true facts regarding transfer of membership in favour of petitioner and had willfully omitted to implead the petitioner as party in the appeal.

7. The application of petitioner was contested by respondent No. 1 on the grounds that the application was not maintainable as respondent No. 1 had not prayed any relief against the petitioner. It was further averred that the Society had not rejected the prayer of respondent No. 1 for permission to ply the vehicles on the ground that his membership and token stood transferred to the petitioner, rather such rejection was on the ground that the membership of respondent No. 1 had been cancelled for his ina