Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 269 (RAJ)

Karnveer Singh v. Panji Lal Damor

2020-01-29

ARUN BHANSALI

body2020
JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 14.08.2019 passed by District Judge, Dungarpur, whereby, the appeal filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 has been allowed and the order dated 17.07.2019 passed by Additional Senior Civil judge, Dungarpur under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been set aside. 2. A suit was filed by petitioner-plaintiff for declaration and permanent & mandatory injunction in relation to one Chauhan Hari Singh Sewa Sansthan Pith, District Dungarpur, inter alia, claiming declaration that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have been duly expelled and, therefore, the meeting dated 25.05.2016 held by them was illegal, all the actions taken by defendants after 25.05.2016 be declared null & void and the said defendants be declared ineligible to work in any society. Alongwith the suit, an application seeking temporary injunction was also filed. 3. The application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 CPC was resisted by the defendants and a counter application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 CPC was filed seeking various directions against the petitioner and a restraint against him from interfering with working of the society. 4. The trial court by its order dated 17.07.2019 came to the conclusion that in the meeting dated 24.04.2016 all the 15 members present unanimously expelled respondent Nos.1 to 3 from the membership and the said decision was confirmed in meeting dated 01.05.2016 and, therefore, the expulsion was legal and the defendants had no right to participate in the working of the institution. 5. Issues pertaining to balance of convenience and irreparable injury were also found in favour of the plaintiff. Based on which, it was ordered that till disposal of the suit the defendants would not interfere directly or indirectly in the working of the College and that the plaintiff institution through its working Committee and General Body would be entitled to take decisions for the benefit of the institution. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants filed an appeal under Order XLIII CPC. 7. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants filed an appeal under Order XLIII CPC. 7. The appellate court by its order dated 14.08.2019 came to the conclusion that the trial court though found that the expulsion of the appellants was in accordance with the constitution, however, as the said decision was not approved by the Subregistrar, the decision taken was not as per the bylaws and, therefore, there was no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner and consequently allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 17.07.2019 and directed that no interference be done in the working of the institution. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellate court was not justified in setting aside the order passed by the trial court. Submissions were made that foundational reason indicated by the appellate court that expulsion has not been approved by the Sub-registrar is baseless, inasmuch as, there is no provision in law for seeking such approval and the observations made by the Sub-registrar were without jurisdiction. For the nature of observations made by him and interference in this regard, the said Sub-registrar was also proceeded departmentally and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. With reference to the material available on record submissions were made that the respondents were not entitled to any relief and, therefore, the order passed by the appellate court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the order impugned. It was submitted that the entire action of the petitioner in expelling the respondents was contrary to the constitution of the Society, wherein, the said members had no right to expel the respondents from membership and, as such, the appellate court was justified in setting aside the order impugned, which order does not call for any interference. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 12. The entire case of the petitioner-plaintiff is based on the fact that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have been duly expelled by the general body meeting of the society. For the action taken, the petitioner has placed on record the material i.e. notice dated 07.04.2016 (Annexure-8) and minutes of the meeting dated 24.04.2016. 13. 12. The entire case of the petitioner-plaintiff is based on the fact that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have been duly expelled by the general body meeting of the society. For the action taken, the petitioner has placed on record the material i.e. notice dated 07.04.2016 (Annexure-8) and minutes of the meeting dated 24.04.2016. 13. A perusal of the notice of meeting indicates that the meeting was convened by the Secretary for considering the explanation of Punjilal Damor, Bharat Damor & Amritlal Damor and for appropriate decision and in the minutes it is merely indicated that their conduct was discussed in the General Body Meeting and it was unanimously decided to expel them. 14. The relevant provisions of the constitution read as under:- 15. A perusal of the above indicates that the power to expel a member has been conferred on the Managing Committee on finding the member guilty under Clause-(7). The General Body has been authorized under Clause-(9) to elect Managing Committee, pass annual budget, scrutinize the working of Managing Committee and approve the same and make amendments in the constitution by 2/3rd majority. Nowhere in the constitution the power has been conferred on the general body to expel a member. 16. In Clause-(13) of the constitution dealing with powers of the Managing Committee also it is specifically indicated that it shall have the power to induct members and expel them. 17. In view thereof, apparently the action of the General Body in its meeting dated 24.04.2016 in expelling members was ex facie beyond its powers. Further, it is surprising that the Secretary appears to have issued notices to the Chairman Punjilal Damor, Deputy Chairman Bharat Damor and Member Amritlal Damor and has sought explanation from them. The said action of the Secretary also is apparently beyond his powers as conferred under Clause-(15) of the Constitution, which were very limited. 18. The plea raised that as the respondents themselves were part of the Managing Committee and, therefore, the action was initiated by the General Body also cannot be countenanced in absence of any such decision taken by the General Body Meeting to issue notice to respondents, seek their explanation and then take decision on such explanation. 19. 18. The plea raised that as the respondents themselves were part of the Managing Committee and, therefore, the action was initiated by the General Body also cannot be countenanced in absence of any such decision taken by the General Body Meeting to issue notice to respondents, seek their explanation and then take decision on such explanation. 19. In view of the above fact situation, irrespective of the fact as to whether the Sub-registrar had the power to hold passing of resolution as illegal, the material available on record clearly indicates that the action of expelling the respondents is prima facie not sustainable. 20. In view of the above fact situation, the order passed by the appellate court does not call for any interference. The writ petition filed by the petitioner has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed. 21. It is made clear that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of disposal of the present writ petition, which has arisen out of an application filed under Order XXXIX, Order 1 & 2 CPC and, therefore, the observations made being only prima facie the same would not affect the final outcome of the suit and the trial court would be free to come to an independent finding based on the evidence led before it alongwith material available on record.