JUDGMENT : V.K.Jain, J. CS(OS) 1324/2007 & IAs 8214/2007(O.39 R.1 & 2 CPC), 387/2008(O.39 R.2A CPC) 1. This is a suit for declaration and injunction. The plaintiffs are members of defendant No.1, which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Initially, the suit was filed against four defendants but later on, considering the plea taken in the written statement of defendants 3 & 4, they were deleted from the array of defendants. 2. The grievance of the plaintiffs is that the Constitution of defendant No.1 Society, which could have been amended only by its Mahasabha, in a meeting where at least 2/3rd of its members are present, has been amended by the Working Committee which has no jurisdiction to amend the Constitution. According to the plaintiffs, it was in a meeting held at Ludhiana on 27.08.2006, that the Working Committee passed a resolution amending the Constitution. The plaintiffs have accordingly sought a declaration that the Constitution passed by the Executive Committee of defendant No.1 Society in its meeting held at Ludhiana on 27.08.2006 is illegal and ulta vires the Constitution of the Society dated 28.11.1993. They have also sought declaration that whatever decisions/actions have been taken on the basis of the impugned Constitution dated 27.08.2006 are illegal. They have also sought an injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the Constitution dated 27.08.2006. 3. A perusal of the order dated March 5, 2008 would show that on that date there was appearance on behalf of defendants No.1 & 2 and the counsel stated that the Constitution dated 28.11.1993 was enforced and they were not adopting or implementing the Constitution of 2006. Vide order dated November 20, 2008, the right of defendants No.1 & 2 to file the written statement was closed and they were proceeded ex-parte. 4. The plaintiffs have filed the affidavit of plaintiff – Arvind Sharma by way of ex-parte evidence. In his affidavit, he has supported on oath the case set out in the plaint and has also exhibited the Constitution of 1993 as also the Constitution amended by the Working Committee on 27.08.2006. He has further stated that the Constitution dated 27.08.2006 was never put up in the meeting held on that date and was never proposed in that meeting. In any case, according to him, the Constitution, having been passed by the Executive Committee, is not valid. 5. He has further stated that the Constitution dated 27.08.2006 was never put up in the meeting held on that date and was never proposed in that meeting. In any case, according to him, the Constitution, having been passed by the Executive Committee, is not valid. 5. Clause 11 of the Constitution of 1993 Ex.PW-1/1 provides that Mahasamiti is authorized to amend the permanent Constitution of the Society but that would require presence of 2/3rd total members and would come into force immediately on being approved by the Mahasamiti. A perusal of the Ex.PW-1/2 which is the Constitution approved on 27.08.2006 would show that the same was approved by the Working Committee (Karya-Samiti) and not by Mahasabha. In view of the provisions contained in clause 11 of the Constitution of 1993, the Executive Committee was not authorized to amend the Constitution. Therefore, the amendment carried out on 27.08.2006 is ultra vires the Constitution of defendant No.1 Society. 6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, a decree for declaration is passed declaring that the amendment to the Constitution of defendant No.1 Society to the extent it was carried out in the meeting of the Working Committee held on 27.08.2006 is ultra vires the Constitution of defendant No.1 Society and, therefore, is not enforceable. No other relief is pressed by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. There shall be no order as to costs. 7. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. The suit and all pending applications stand disposed of.