JUDGMENT Permod Kohli, J.:-This regular second appeal is preferred by appellant, defendant No.2 in the suit. The Sikh Education Board, Nawanshahr through its President Sh.R.S.Chinna, filed a suit for declaration that meeting held on 14.2.1996 is null and void. Appellant who is defendant No.2 in the suit filed written statement and also raised counter-claim seeking to challenge the validity of the Resolution dated 27.1.1991. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 26.11.1997 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent on the ground that simpliciter suit for declaration without consequential relief is not maintainable. These findings were returned against Issue No.3. The trial Court also dismissed the counter-claim of the present appellant on the ground that prior to filing of counterclaim in this suit, the appellant had filed a civil suit No.330 of 1993 titled as Managing Committee Jujhar Singh, Fateh Singh Khalsa High School, Nawanshahr Vs. Raghbir Singh. Chinna President The Sikh Education Board, 424 Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar City and another in the Court of B.S.Sandhu, PCS, Sub Judge. 1st Class, Nawanshahr. The suit was subsequently withdrawn by the plaintiff and same was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.12.1994. It is accordingly held by the trial Court that the suit is barred by limitation and also in view of the earlier withdrawal of the suit. Two appeals were preferred against the judgment and decree dated 26.11.1997 one by the plaintiff against the dismissal of the suit and the other by present appellant, who was defendant No.2 against dismissal of his counterclaim. The first appellate court concurred with the findings of the trial court and dismissed both the appeals. 2. The plaintiff-respondent has chosen not to prefer any appeal and hence, all the findings against him have attained finality. Though the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent has been dismissed, however, the present appellant who was defendant in the suit, and appellant in one of the appeals, has filed this appeal only to the limited extent of assailing the findings recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate court in regard to the validity of the meeting held on 14.2.1996. 3. Mr. 3. Mr. Ashwani Chopra, learned senior counsel for the appellant has stated that once the trial court was of the opinion that suit is not maintainable in view of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and his counterclaim rejected being barred by limitation, there was no occasion for the court to return any findings regarding validity of the meeting held on 14.2.1996 that too without considering the defence of the appellant. It is also admitted case of the parties that a separate suit in regard to the validity of the meeting dated 14.2.1996 was already pending. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. From the judgment of the trial Court, it appears that the trial Court has returned specific findings with regard to the validity of the meeting dated 14.2.1996. Trial Court recorded as under:­- “So, from the above given observations it is crystal clear that Ajit Singh un-authorised called the meeting for 14.2.1996 No agenda of the alleged meeting has been brought on record by the defendants. In that alleged meeting resolution dated 14.2.1996 was adopted by the defendants, a copy of which is Ex.D2, and vide it defendants No.1 and 2 were elected as manager and president of the Nawanshahr School respectively. Therefore, I hold that the resolution dated 14.2.1996, is illegal, null and void. 6. Aggrieved of these findings, it is argued on behalf of the appellant that trial Court acted illegally in returning these findings and so is the position with the appellate court which affirmed these findings without going into the material on record in depth. There is substance in the submission of Mr. Chopra, Senior Advocate for the appellant when both the courts dismissed the suit filed by the respondent being not maintainable in terms of Section 34 for Specific Relief Act as also the counterclaim of the present appellant being barred by time, it was not proper or appropriate for the Courts below to have returned any such findings, particularly when the validity of the said meeting was already in question in a separate suit which was pending when the judgments came to be passed by the trial court and appellate court. 7. 7. In view of the above reason, I set aside these findings and at the same time, affirm the judgments and decrees of the courts below in so far the dismissal of the suit and counter-claim is concerned. No order as to costs. ——————————————