JUDGMENT : Manish Kumar Nigam, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.1.2025 passed by District Judge, Banda rejecting the application under Section 5A of the Society Registration Act, 1860 declining the permission to the society to execute a sale deed of the property of the society on the ground that original resolution and accounts of the society were not placed before the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the District Judge, Banda has erred in law in rejecting the application filed by the society under Section 5A of the Society Registration Act, 1807. There was no objection on behalf of any of the members of the society to the sale of the property of the society and therefore the application filed by the Society ought to have been allowed by the District Judge, Banda. 4. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that application was filed impleading public at large as opposite party in the said application without impleading the members of the society who may probably have any objections to the sale of the property of the society. This Court in case of Kisan Education Society Vs. District Judge and others , 2008 (10) ADJ 524 has held in paragraph 6 and 7 of the judgment which are quoted as under : "6. Section 5 -A of the Societies Registration Act, as applicable in the State of U.P. provides: 5. Property of society how vested - The property, movable and immovable, belonging to a society registered under this Act, if not vested in trustees, shall be deemed to be vested, for the time being, in the governing body of such society, and in all proceedings, civil and criminal, may be described as the property of the governing body of such society by their proper title. 7. The aforesaid provision has been incorporated in order to protect the properties of the Society and the interest of its members. This Section places an embargo on the Society from transferring its immovable properties without previous permission from the District Judge. 7. The aforesaid provision has been incorporated in order to protect the properties of the Society and the interest of its members. This Section places an embargo on the Society from transferring its immovable properties without previous permission from the District Judge. The idea behind this is that the Court should be satisfied that the transfer of the property of the Society was being made in the larger interest of the Society and not to the detriment of the members of the Society." 5. Similar view was taken in case of Raj Nath Misra Vs. The Xth Addl. District Judge, Varanasi and others , 1991 ALJ 486 , wherein the Court has held: "The said Section has been enacted for putting a check on the society from transferring its immovable properties without the previous approval of the Court so that the Court may also look into it and give permission only if the Court is satisfied that the transfer of any immovable property is being made in the interest of the society and not in the manner which is detrimental to the interest of the society. This is the entire scope of said section. The only objection which is contemplated within the purview of the aforesaid Section is that the governing body of the society is proposing to transfer its immovable property which is contrary to the interest of the institution. It is not within the scope of the said Section to examine as to whether the society has ceased to be the owner of its immovable property." 6. In view of law laid down by this Court, the purpose of obtaining permission before the sale of property of the society by the society is to protect the interest of members of the Society. In the present case, the application was filed without impleading any member of the society and therefore, it cannot said that there was no objection on behalf of the members of the society as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner as they are not impeaded as opposite party in the aforesaid proceedings. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that records of the Society was already placed but the same were not looked into by the District Judge. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that records of the Society was already placed but the same were not looked into by the District Judge. 8. In my view, since the application filed by the petitioner is itself not maintainable for want of necessary parties i.e. members of the society, the court below has not committed any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner be given liberty to move a fresh application after impleading all the necessary parties i.e. members of the society for redressal of their grievance as the members of the society were not made party in the earlier proceedings. It has also been prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner that society may be permitted to file evidence in support of that application. 10. In veiw of the prayer made by the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application for redressal of his grievance after impleading all the necessary parties i.e. members of the society. In case, such an application is moved by the petitioner, the same shall be considered and decided by the District Judge, Banda, in accordance with law, expeditiously after ensuring service upon all the respondents and after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned provided that there is no other legal impediment without being influenced by finding recorded in order dated 21.1.2025 passed by the District Judge earlier.