JUDGMENT MANMOHAN SINGH, J. 1. By this order I shall dispose of I.A. No. 10973/2009 filed by Mr. Prakash Arya claiming to be Secretary of plaintiff No.1 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC). 2. There are three factions claiming to be the plaintiff Sabha, disputing with each other and struggling so that one faction remains in the Sabha and the other factions are dislodged, thus a tug of war has been going on between them and it is this reason that has given rise to the present suit. Due to the animosity between these factions, this Court by order dated 11th December, 2008 asked all the three factions to suggest two names each for the purpose of constituting a committee of three Court Commissioners. Of the names submitted, a committee comprising of Justice K. Ramamoorthy, Justice Jawahar Lal Gupta and Justice S.K. Mahajan was formed by this Court to ensure proper and unbiased elections so as to empower the Sabha with duly elected persons in charge and in the meantime, to ensure smooth functioning of the matters of the Sabha etc. 3. The three factions thereafter appeared before the Court Commissioners appointed by this Court in regular meetings. In the sixth such meeting held on 11th July, 2009 the case of the Delhi Prantiya Sabha as submitted by the three factions was to be considered. However, one of the factions? (headed by Sh. Vimal Wadhawan) counsel Sh. Ram Phan Bansal, Senior Advocate along with the support of the other faction (headed by Swami Agnivesh) objected to the proceedings stating that the Court Commissioners had become functus officio. Thereafter the Court Commissioners fixed 18th July, 2009 as the date of the next meeting stating that the proceedings would continue only if the Court extended the time enabling them to continue with the proceedings for holding the elections. 4. This Court by order dated 14th July, 2009 extended the tenure of the Court Commissioners till further orders. The meeting was held on 18th July, 2009 as scheduled and the proceedings were re-commenced. In the said meeting, the two factions headed by Sh. 4. This Court by order dated 14th July, 2009 extended the tenure of the Court Commissioners till further orders. The meeting was held on 18th July, 2009 as scheduled and the proceedings were re-commenced. In the said meeting, the two factions headed by Sh. Vimal Wadhawan and Swami Agnivesh submitted that though each of them had given a separate list of office-bearers of each State for the elections, they would agree to submit one list for each State in order to limit the dispute regarding the electoral college. Accepting this suggestion, the Court Commissioners gave the factions four weeks time to file a common list for each Prantiya Sabha. 5. In the next meeting which was held on 22nd August, 2009, certain events transpired which caused the Court Commissioners to adjourn the next meeting to 12th September, 2009 and on 24th August, 2009 the Court Commissioners passed an order stating that they would request this Court to relieve them of their duties and appoint another committee of Court Commissioners due to the occurrence of events on 22nd August, 2009. What had happened on the said date was that the Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of Sh. Vimal Wadhavan submitted in the meeting that one of the Court Commissioners was friendly with the Senior Advocate representing the applicant herein and therefore, the said Court Commissioner would entertain a bias towards the applicant. In pursuance of this allegation of bias, the ld. Court Commissioners decided to cease their activities as Court Commissioners in the present case. The meeting on 22nd August, 2009 was adjourned by the learned Court Commissioners with the direction that the next meeting would be held on 12th September, 2009 and the Court Commissioners passed a speaking order which reads as under: “Present: Mr. R.P. Bansal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vimal Wadhavan, Advocate for the plaintiffs. Shri Satyavarat Samvedi and Kailash Nath Singh for the defendants. Mr. V.P. Chaudry, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhry, Advocate for the applicant. Matter was fixed today for consideration for the list of Delhi Prantiya Sabha, however, at the outset, one of the advocates representing one of the factions has submitted that one of the members of the Committee is friendly with a lawyer of one of other parties and he should, therefore, not continue to be member of the Committee. Matter was fixed today for consideration for the list of Delhi Prantiya Sabha, however, at the outset, one of the advocates representing one of the factions has submitted that one of the members of the Committee is friendly with a lawyer of one of other parties and he should, therefore, not continue to be member of the Committee. We were appointed by an order of the High Court of Delhi dated 11th December, 2008 and the first meeting was held on 15th January, 2009. Since then, we have been holding regular meetings and today was the eighth meeting. No objection whatsoever was raised in any of the earlier seven meetings about the presence of one of us as a member of the Committee on the ground of any one of us being friendly with a lawyer of one of the parties. Though the objection taken is highly unfortunate, however, since an allegation of bias has been made against one of us, we would like to recuse ourselves from this matter and would request the Honble Delhi High Court to relieve us as early as possible. Next sitting has been decided to be held on 12th September, 2009 at 5.30 p.m. and in the mean time, the parties may approach the High Court for getting a new Committee appointed for holding elections in terms of the orders of the High Court.” 6. The applicant has filed the present application praying that this Court should not accept the request of the Court Commissioners to recuse themselves from this matter and should ask them to continue as the Court Commissioners till they are able to hold fresh and proper elections of the Sabha as expeditiously as possible. 7. Prior to the filing of the present application being IA No.10973/2009, an application being IA No.6850/2009 under Order 23 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC was filed on 20th May, 2009 which was signed by Sh. Vimal Wadhawan on behalf of the plaintiff and by some other defendants for dismissal of the suit as withdrawn. The present applicant opposed the said application by referring order dated 11th December, 2008 and thereafter the statement was made on behalf of the applicant in IA No.6850/2009 being not pressed. Vimal Wadhawan on behalf of the plaintiff and by some other defendants for dismissal of the suit as withdrawn. The present applicant opposed the said application by referring order dated 11th December, 2008 and thereafter the statement was made on behalf of the applicant in IA No.6850/2009 being not pressed. However, the plaintiff wished to press the relief of constitution of fresh committee of two members drawn from each of the three factions for holding of the elections and this Court in order dated 21st May, 2009 observed as under: “It is made clear that the Election Committee appointed by the Court vide order dated 11.12.2008 shall continue to discharge its functions, unhindered by the fact that the present application has been moved.” 8. According to the applicant, Sh. Raj Singh Arya and Sh. Vinay Arya are the President and Secretary respectively of Delhi Arya Pratinidhi Sabha. 9. The applicant has submitted that the non-applicants have made every attempt possible to delay the proceedings before the Court Commissioners, no doubt with the ultimate goal of not allowing the elections to ever take place. Further, the allegation of Senior Advocate representing Sh. Vimal Wadhavan has been stated to be completely unfounded and it has been submitted that the applicants Senior Advocate has been a practicing advocate in Tis Hazari courts, has been an advocate on record in the Supreme Court of India and has been a designated Senior Advocate in this court since 1991. During the course of these years he has obviously acquainted himself with innumerable persons of the legal profession. 10. Further, the Court Commissioner against whom the allegations of bias were leveled was an advocate who later became a Judge of this Court and in fact, he had an unblemished record as a Judge of this Court. Being of the same profession, the two persons are cordial to each other and extend natural professional courtesy to each other but they are not related and there is no reason to believe that the views of said Court Commissioner might be prejudiced or biased due to his alleged „friendship? with senior counsel for the applicant. 11. A reply to the said application has been filed by Professor Swatanter Kumar, Secretary of the plaintiff Sabha stating that Sh. Prakash Arya has no locus standi to represent the plaintiff Sabha. 12. with senior counsel for the applicant. 11. A reply to the said application has been filed by Professor Swatanter Kumar, Secretary of the plaintiff Sabha stating that Sh. Prakash Arya has no locus standi to represent the plaintiff Sabha. 12. It has also been stated that a Single Judge of this Court disposed of the suit as infructous vide order dated 24th August, 2007, after which Sh. Prakash Arya filed an appeal being R.F.A. (OS) No. 54/2007. A Division Bench of this Court thereafter remanded the matter back to the Single Bench with the specific direction to dispose of the pending application being I.A. No. 8291/2006 filed by Sh. Prakash Arya. It is the non-applicants submission that the counsel of Sh. Prakash Arya is deliberately avoiding arguing on the said application. 13. It is also stated that the Court Commissioners were appointed on the condition that the election process would be completed within six months however, no satisfactory progress in this regard has been made and an amount of Rs. 6 lac has already been spent. Further, one of the Court Commissioners has been snubbing the other counsels during the proceedings and seems inclined to listen to the opinion of Sh. Chaudhry only. 14. A reply has also been filed by Sh. Vimal Wadhawan, the head of one of the factions and plaintiff no. 2 in the present suit. Sh. Vimal Wadhawan has submitted various facts which have already been mentioned as well as the fact that he was the secretary of the plaintiff no. 1 before the current secretary Sh. Swatanter Kumar, along with the assertion that Sh. Prakash Arya has no locus standi to file the application under consideration and the application being I.A. No. 8291/2006 filed by Sh. Prakash Arya earlier ought to taken up for consideration in the first instance. 15. In the rejoinder to the above two replies, the applicant has submitted that it is clearly one of the three parties mentioned in this courts order dated 11th December, 2008 and it is too late in the day now to challenge the locus standi of Sh. Prakash Arya, who is entitled to ask for directions to ensure the expeditious and fair election process of the Sabha. 16. Prakash Arya, who is entitled to ask for directions to ensure the expeditious and fair election process of the Sabha. 16. It is not in dispute that vide order dated 11th December, 2008 passed by this Court, it was observed that there are three factions each claiming to be the Sabha and by the same order this Court appointed three retired Judges as Receivers/ Court Commissioners/ Election Officers for the purpose of holding fresh election of Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha. 17. It appears from the pleadings and orders that the order dated 11the December, 2008 was passed for appointing the Court Commissioners after considering the names provided by the three factions and as per their suggestions. None of the factions objected to any of the three names of the Court Commissioners when the order was passed. Admittedly, the first meeting was conducted on 15the January, 2009 and subsequently six more meetings took place. There were no suggestions whatsoever by any of the parties regarding any bias or prejudice in favour of or against any faction by any of the Court Commissioners. When the application No.6850/2009 under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC was filed on 20.5.2009 for withdrawal of the suit, no allegation whatsoever was made in the application that any of the Court Commissioners were biased in favour of the present applicant. Not only that, the matter was listed before the Court from time to time. On 14th July, 2009 when the parties counsel appeared before the Court, nothing was mentioned in this regard. In the subsequent meetings also, no objection was raised despite of the appearance of the parties before the Court Commissioners. 18. I agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant and this Court has full confidence in the impartiality, integrity and competence of the Court Commissioners and this Court sees no reason for any of them to be recused from the responsibility of conducting the elections of the Sabha. 19. It has been rightly observed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of A. Anuradha Vs. Canara Bank, 2006 ALT 4 581 that :- “In this connection, it is apposite to observe that Satya (truth) and Ahimsa (nonviolence) are the two basic values of life, which have been cherished for centuries in this land of Mahavir and Mahatma Gandhi. Canara Bank, 2006 ALT 4 581 that :- “In this connection, it is apposite to observe that Satya (truth) and Ahimsa (nonviolence) are the two basic values of life, which have been cherished for centuries in this land of Mahavir and Mahatma Gandhi. People from different parts (sic) of the world come here to learn these fundamental principles of life. However, post-independence era and particularly the last two decades have witnessed sharp decline in these two basic values of life. Materialism has over shadowed the old ethos and quest for personal gain is so immense that people do not have any regard for the „truth.” 20. Unfortunately, in the present case it appears prima facie that one of the parties is trying to adopt one or the other strategy and/or technique in order to stall the election process of the Sabha. Flinging baseless allegations of prejudice against the highly respected and reputed Court Commissioners appointed by this Court shall not be taken lightly and this Court shall not succumb to strategies concocted by parties to halt or unnecessarily lengthen the process of justice and for the said act, the faction led by Sh. Vimal Wadhavan will bear the cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited within two weeks by way of a cheque drawn in favour of the Registrar General of this Court. The total amount of the said cheque shall be kept available for Juvenile Justice. 21. For the aforesaid reasons, I accept the prayer made in the present application filed by the applicant and this Court requests the learned Court Commissioners to reconsider the order passed on 22nd August, 2009 and to continue as before as Court Commissioners/Court Receivers/Election Officers without any hesitation whatsoever till they are able to hold fresh elections of the Sabha. 22. IA No.10973/2009 is disposed of with the above stated directions. Parties shall now appear before the learned Court Commissioners on 23rd February, 2010 for further proceedings. Copy of the order to be sent to the Court Commissioners as well as counsel of the parties. Dasti.