Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Civil Revision No. 2362 of 2012 (O&M)
Shri Sanatan Dharam Education Society (Registered), Panipat
v.
Anil Goyal & Ors.
{Decided on 11/10/2012}
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.39 R.1 & 2--Injunction--Sought against induction of new members in society and restraining them from participating is working of society--Held; The questions, whether the resolution passed by the Society is the result of manhandling or snatching of the proceeding book from the Chairman and the members were enrolled against the rules and regulations and also without amendment in the Constitution, are the moot questions to be decided at the time of trial--If these issues are decided at time of disposing of the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, then nothing would be left to the trial Court to decide on merits--Injunction declined.
The proceeding book, prima facie, shows that all the members had consented to the enhancement of the members--As such, the plaintiffs cannot be said to have prima facie case for grant of injunction in their favour to seek direction that 100 new members should not participate in the meetings of the Society; seek election to any post of governing bodies of various educational institutions governed by the society and exercise their franchise/votes in the election of the Society--If those 100 new members are deprived of their right to cast their franchise, which they have legally attained after payment of necessary fee, as claimed by the Society, then certainly they would lose a valuable constitutional right provided to them--However, their nonparticipation would not, in any way, jeopardize the rights of the plaintiffs to avail franchise and election--As such, plaintiffs appear to have instituted the present suit in order to create obstruction in the smooth functioning of the Society--If the functioning of the Society is stopped, then certainly it would be a serious set back to the development of the education and smooth functioning of the institutions in various ways. (Para 25)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.1 R.8--Representative Suit--The parties, who have appeared or intend to appear in the Court to oppose the lis, cannot claim that the mandatory provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 CPC have not been complied with. (Para 29)
(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.1 R.8--Representative Suit--Even the necessary permission, if suffers from any defect, could not be thrown away for that very defect--Even the law does not provide for any permission in the specific words. (Para 33)
(D) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.1 R.8--Representative Suit--The main object of the rule is to apprise the parties having similar or common interest about the lis pending in the Court and the party, who has been served and intended to contest or support the cause and was before the Court to do so, is least concerned to say that the rule has not been complied with--The contest by such party, notwithstanding the fact that the rule is mandatory, would highlight that such party is not interested in contesting the suit but delaying it. (Para 31)
(E) Practice & Procedure--Procedural Laws--Enacted for governance of the adversial trials in the common Law Courts should be interpreted not like the academicians, but from the view point of common man's judgment which may help smooth functioning of the Courts and not be applied or interpreted in such a manner which thwart or delay justice resulting serious prejudice or failure of justice or set the clock back and make the trial a de-novo, nugatory or mockery. (Para 30)
Mr. A.N. Jindal, J (Oral):- This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos.2362, 5140, 5143 of 2012 and 7013 of 2011, as common questions of law and facts are involved in all the petitions.
2. Civil Revision Nos.2362 and 5140 of 2012 have arisen out of the order dated 07.04.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panipat, reversing the order dated 01.10.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat, declining the application for temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs.
3. Civil Revision Nos. 7013 of 2011 and 5143 of 2012 have arisen out of the order dated 19.04.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat, extending permission to the plaintiffs to file suit in a representative capacity and order dated 11.08.2011 dismissing the review application against the aforesaid order dated 19.04.2011.
4. Gone are the times when the Sanatan Dharam Education Society (Regd.), Panipat (for brevity ‘the Society’), was known for imparting quality education and producing cream for the society, but now the Courts are its battlefield.
5. The present case is a classical example, which has started putting imprints over the minds of the public that members of the Society are not concerned with the pious cause of development and upliftment of education and development of the student culture, but they are after the chair; concerned with their own bowls while throwing the development of education to the winds. Their motive now is no more to take the education forward, but is as to how to play politics; snatch power and position to maintain arrogance and egoism. The prevalent mode of politics is to spread rudism; excuse and abuse and to get power at any cost.
6. Factual background of the case is that the Society having 201 life members, has been running number of institutions at Panipat. It is a registered society. The object of the Society was to provide literacy, industrial, commercial, technical, scientific, professional, moral and religious education and to devise means to establish institutions. Earlier in the year 2006, Shri Rajinder Kumar Goel was discharging his duties in the capacity of Secretary of the Society. The said Society passed a resolution dated 18.06.2005 to introduce new members in view of the enlargement of the institution and its work load. But, the said enrollment of the members was challenged by filing a civil suit. They had also filed an application for grant of injunction against the election of the said Society, which was declined by the trial Court and in the appeal against the said order, the Appellate Court had directed to hold the elections, but by including new members who were enrolled vide resolution dated 18.06.2005. Ultimately, the said enrollment was challenged and was set aside by the Civil Court on 21.08.2009. The Society had also enrolled 13 new members in place of dead members, but the said election was also challenged by filing a civil suit No.96 of 2011, which was also decreed in favour of Jai Bhagwan Garg and said election of 13 new members was also declared as null and void.
7. Still, the Society with a view to add 100 more members, called a meeting on 05.02.2010, which was attended by 143 members, who passed various resolutions, including increasing the members and amendment of the constitution in that regard.
8. Still dissatisfied, Anil Goyal and Parveen Goyal, present plaintiffs, challenged the said resolution and alleged that out of 143 members, 90 had opposed the agenda items and the Chairman dropped the agenda matters; as such the necessary amendment for increasing the members could not be introduced. It was further pleaded that no alleged consent was given to the resolution passed by the committee, but the Secretary of the Society had snatched away the minute-book from the Chairman and handed it over to the members and bogus proceedings were scribed therein. Thus, it was pleaded that the resolution dated 05.02.2010, passed by the Secretary, was illegal,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
