Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1697 (DEL)

SARVADESHIK ARYA PRATINIDHI SABHA v. KAILASH NATH

2007-08-24

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

body2007
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction seeking the following reliefs: "1. Declaration that there is only one Sarvdashik Arya Pratinidi Sabha, i. e. Plaintiff Sabha, having presently its registered and head office in 3/5, maharishi Dayanand Bhawan, Ram Lela Maidan, Asif Ali Road, Delhi, bearing registration No. S-11, registered with the office of Registrar Societies, Delhi, under the Societies Registration Act 1860, and none else. 2. Declaration that the claim of the defendants and their associates having been elected as office bearers of Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha or its Antarang Sabha, as appearing in the news in the newspaper Daily Punjab kesari, Delhi Edition dt. 13. 9. 2004 or elsewhere is nonest, baseless and being so wrong, illegal, unlawful and unauthorised, and further declaration that none other than the plaintiff Sabha is entitled to use the name of Sarvadeshik Arya pratinidhi Sabha; 3. Mandatory injunction, directing the defendants and their associates to publish in news papers showing conspicuously that the News concerning sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha already published in the newspaper Daily punjab Kesari, Delhi Edition dt. 13. 9. 2004 or elsewhere, is false. 4. Permanent Injunction, restraining the defendants and, their associates, from using the name of the plaintiff Sabha for any purpose, whatsoever, and without prejudice to the generality of 'any purpose whatsoever', from claiming to be the office bearers or elected or nominated representatives of Sarvadeshik arya Pratinidhi Sabha i. e. ; the plaintiff Sabha. 5. Permanent injunction restraining the defendant s and their associates from interfering in the peaceful working, activities, programmes and peaceful possession and use of the properties and the assets possessed by the plaintiff sabha and its constituent bodies. Such other and further order/orders be passed and relief/reliefs granted as the hon'ble Court deems fit and proper. Cost of the suit be also awarded in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. " ( 2 ) PLAINTIFF no. 1 is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 since the year 1914. Plaintiff no. 1 claims to be the global body of Arya samaj, a movement founded by Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati in 1875. The plaint avers that there are 8,000 Arya Samajes and many provincial Arya Pratinidhi sabhas of which plaintiff no. 1 is the apex body. There are various properties and institutions managed by plaintiff no. 1. Plaintiff no. 1 claims to be the global body of Arya samaj, a movement founded by Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati in 1875. The plaint avers that there are 8,000 Arya Samajes and many provincial Arya Pratinidhi sabhas of which plaintiff no. 1 is the apex body. There are various properties and institutions managed by plaintiff no. 1. Plaintiff no. 2 claims to be the secretary of plaintiff no. 1. ( 3 ) THE plaint states that elections are held from time to time of plaintiff no. 1 sabha. There have been apparently disputes for some time regarding such elections and in Suit No. 417/1999 a learned Civil Judge, Delhi, vide an order dated 9. 8. 2001 appointed Election Officer Cum Administrator for conducting the elections of plaintiff no. 1 Sabha. The elections were conducted on 3. 11. 2001 under the Election Officer Cum Administrator. Capt. Dev Rattan Arya was elected as President, Shri Vimal Wadhawan as Vice-President and Shri Ved Vrat Sharma, as secretary apart from 32 other office bearers. The tenure of such office bearers was for a period of three years. There is a long list of achievements stated to be of the said elected body. ( 4 ) THE term of the elected body was to expire on 2. 11. 2004 but authorisation was given to the President to hold the elections even before the term expired. A spate of litigations, in the meantime, had continued including a suit filed by defendant no. 5, being Suit No. 129/2002. Interim orders were stated to have been declined and, thus, the elected body of the Sabha was free to hold elections. The suit was also subsequently dismissed. It may be noted that Shri R. B. Bansal (Senior Advocate, who appears for the plaintiffs in the present suit) had been appointed as the person to hold the elections. ( 5 ) FRESH elections were stated to have been held on 18. 7. 2004 where once again capt. Dev Rattan Arya was elected as the President and plaintiff no. 2 as the secretary. The term of the elected body was to expire on 17. 7. 2007. The suit filed by defendant no. 5 had, in fact, become infructuous in view of the elections held and was accordingly dismissed. The disputes cropped up on account of the claim of the defendants that they had been elected to various offices of plaintiff no. The term of the elected body was to expire on 17. 7. 2007. The suit filed by defendant no. 5 had, in fact, become infructuous in view of the elections held and was accordingly dismissed. The disputes cropped up on account of the claim of the defendants that they had been elected to various offices of plaintiff no. 1 Sabha on the basis of elections held on 12. 9. 2004 It is the case of the plaintiffs that no such elections were held or could be held and it is in view thereof that the suit was filed. The suit was resisted by the defendants who claimed that it is the elections where the defendants were elected which were the relevant ones and the elections held by the plaintiffs were manipulated. ( 6 ) THE present suit went on for some time and arguments were heard on the interim application, whereafter judgment was reserved on 17. 4. 2006. It is thereafter that some applications were filed. These applications arose on account of the allegations that one Shri Prakash Arya had now been appointed as Secretary instead of plaintiff no. 2, who had been expelled from plaintiff no. 1 Sabha. Therefore, substitution was sought. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that he had no objection if the orders were pronounced on the injunction application. In the subsequent proceedings, endeavour were made to find a lasting solution to the problem and learned counsel for the parties took some time. In terms of the order dated 31. 5. 2007, my predecessor noted that it was put to the parties as to whether they would be agreeable to fresh elections under supervision of a Court Commissioner who could be appointed by the Court for the purpose so that the controversy in the suit be resolved for ever. Such course was acceptable to the learned counsel for the defendants and the applicant, who even suggested the modalities for holding the elections. However, something transpired whereby the learned Judge rescued himself from the matter. ( 7 ) AT this stage when the matter again was listed before the Court, it was put to learned counsel for the parties whether the course of having fresh elections would be acceptable. This is more so since the time period for which the plaintiff was stated to have been elected as per the averments in the plaint had already expired. This is more so since the time period for which the plaintiff was stated to have been elected as per the averments in the plaint had already expired. Learned counsel for the applicants, who also sought to appear for plaintiff no. 1, was also of the view that the best course would be to hold elections as the time period had run out. This was also what learned counsel for the defendants stated. ( 8 ) LEARNED senior counsel, Mr. R. P. Bansal, however, contended that it is he who represents plaintiff no. 1 since the authority continues to be with plaintiff no. 2. The result is that there is a dispute as to who represents plaintiff no. 1. It is the submission of Mr. Bansal, Senior Advocate that, in fact, fresh elections have already been held in April, 2007 and there can be no question of holding the elections again. ( 9 ) THE result of the aforesaid is that no amicable solution is possible. It is in view thereof that it has to be seen as to in what directions the suit should proceed in view of the nature of reliefs claimed in the suit. ( 10 ) ON a perusal of the averments made in the plaint and the reliefs sought, it is obvious that the grievance being made by plaintiff no. 2 arises from the claim of the elections having been held in July, 2004 and plaintiff no. 2 claiming to be the relevant persons entitled to prosecute the suit. The period of these elections is over and the claim of the plaintiffs is now based on some alleged fresh elections held in April, 2007. In my considered view, the very substratum of the grievance does not survive. If it is the case of the defendants that such elections were improperly held in April, 2007, the defendants would have to take recourse to appropriate legal remedy for redressal of their grievance. The suit has become infructuous as the elections on the basis of which the plaintiffs were claiming rights has worked itself out, the time period having been elapsed, and the plaintiffs now claiming that fresh elections have already been held in April, 2007. ( 11 ) THE suit is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. The suit has become infructuous as the elections on the basis of which the plaintiffs were claiming rights has worked itself out, the time period having been elapsed, and the plaintiffs now claiming that fresh elections have already been held in April, 2007. ( 11 ) THE suit is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. ( 12 ) IN the end, I must note with a sense of regret that parties to the suit, who claim to be inspired by the teaching of Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati, seem to be more busy fighting among themselves rather than advancing the larger cause for which plaintiff no. 1 was set up. IA No. 6968/04 (O. 39 R. 1and2 CPC)IA No. 5443/05 (O. 11 R. 1 CPC), ia No. 8574/05 (O. 7. R. 11 CPC) and ia No. 7935/06 (u/s 151 CPC) ( 13 ) IN view of the orders passed in the suit, no further directions are called for in these applications. The applications are disposed of.