JUDGMENT By the Court.—We are in respectful agreement with the reasoning given and the order passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajes Kumar on the 14th of July, 2006. Our present order will govern the fate of all four writ applications, all of which were disposed of by his Lordship by the said impugned order. The centre of the controversy is the validity or otherwise of the order passed by the Assistant Registrar on the 6th of February, 2001. The subsequent orders were all made expressly subject to the decision to be given in writ petition No. 8032 of 2001, and that writ petition was filed by the respondents before us challenging the said order of the Assistant Registrar. The said order was in respect of the removal of two members of the Society, being the two Dubey’s. Mr. Khare’s client, supporting the appeal, submitted that those two persons, who were the writ petitioners 2 and 3 in the said writ petition No. 8032 of 2001, were not conducting the affairs of the Society property and as such, the Managing Committee removed them by a no confidence motion being passed to that effect on the 13th of August, 2000. Their further case is that this removal was vetted by the General Body, which met on the very same day at 11:00 a.m. It is not disputed between the parties that for the purpose of removal, it is essential that a decision be given by the General Body and that a mere reference to the General Body by the Managing Committee approving of such no confidence or removal is not by itself enough. 2. The crux of this case is that we have searched and searched again, but every time in vain, for any solid and indisputable material, which would bear out the fact that the General Body did in fact approve the removal of the two Dubey’s. A material in this regard is absolutely essential, especially in the background of the circumstance that the control of the Society is still being carried on by, amongst others, these two Dubey’s and this has continued for the last five years. 3. In the impugned order of 6.2.2001, however, the Assistant Registrar mentions in two places that the removal by the Managing Committee has been ratified by the General Body. 4. 3. In the impugned order of 6.2.2001, however, the Assistant Registrar mentions in two places that the removal by the Managing Committee has been ratified by the General Body. 4. Moreover, the writ petition No. 8032 of 2001 does not in very happy terms proceed on the fair and square basis that such finding by the Assistant Registrar was given on no material, and was either perverse or without jurisdiction. 5. Be that as it may, the papers and pleadings have all now come before Court. The Court has to give thereon the fairest possible decision, which can, on those material and arguments, be made. In the absence of a document coming from the General Body, it would be an inversion of justice to go on the abstract doctrines of pleading and denial, or proceed to infer that by reason of those technicalities only, it should be held that before the Assistant Registrar there was presumptively a document showing the vetting by the General Body, even though that document itself is nowhere to be found. Had the document been in the possession of a third party, or somebody over which the parties have no control, or to whose possession the parties have no access, this might have been a possible procedure. But here, all parties have all the documents, which are necessary, that is, all the documents, which are genuine and on the basis of which the Court can proceed. In this view of the matter, it is not possible to hold that the Dubey’s were properly removed in accordance with the rules by a resolution of the General Body. Once this conclusion is reached, the other orders passed by his Lordship follow merely as a consequence. We must here point out that there are some typewriting or other slips in the judgment like, the Assistant Registrar’s order has been referred to as an order passed on 3.3.2001, although it was passed on 6.2.2001, and that the Assistant Registrar is said to have referred to the Managing Committee’s meeting on 13.8.2000 as being held at 9:00 a.m., although he did not make such exact reference. Those are errors without significance and cannot touch the substance of the decision. 6. The appeals are accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeals Dismissed. ———