AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Alok Kumar Verma, J
Appellant No. 1- defendant no. 1 is a registered Society. Appellant No. 2/1 is the President and the appellant no. 3 is the Secretary of the appellant no. 1.
Respondents-plaintiffs had filed an Original Suit (O.S No. 161 of 2005, “Virendra Kumar Singh and Others vs. Prithvi Raj Chauhan Mahavidhyalaya Sabha Rohalki and Others”) for perpetual injunction stating that the plaintiffs are life members of the defendant no. 1- Society. Defendants have amended the byelaws of the Society without giving notice of the meetings to the plaintiffs and now stating that the membership of the plaintiffs have ceased. They are neither giving any notice of the meetings to the plaintiffs nor allowing them to participate in the management or meetings of the Society.
The said Original Suit was decreed and defendants were restrained from interfering in participation of plaintiffs as life members of defendant no. 1. Allowing the said Original Suit, the Trial Court has declared the amended byelaws of the Society as null and void.
The present appellants had filed an Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The said Appeal (Appeal No. 40 of 2014) has been dismissed. Hence, the present Second Appeal.
Heard Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the respondents.
Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, argued that both the courts passed the judgment and decree by ignoring the documentary evidence, available on record, in regard to notice of meetings, agenda, meetings, resolutions passed therein and the amendment in the byelaws, which if would have been considered would have led to dismissal of the Suit. He further submitted that the plaintiffs have neither challenged the fact of termination of their membership nor sought any relief to declare the amended byelaws as null and void.
Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs, has argued that both the courts have passed the judgments as per law by appreciating the evidence available on the record. He further submitted that there was no pleading of the appellants-defendants in their Written Statement that without seeking the relief of declaration, perpetual injunction cannot be granted.
In reply, Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel submitted that without seeking the relief of declaration, perpetual injunction, in the present matter, could not be granted, since without the relief of declaration, the Trial Court had no inherent jurisdiction to grant perpetual injunction.
The said rival submissions can be raised by the respective counsel at the time of final hearing.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Second Appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-
(i) Whether the plaintiffs could succeed in injunction suit without challenging the cancellation of membership from the Society and without challenging the amended byelaws of the Society duly approved by Registrar Chits and Funds?
(ii) Whether both the courts below have concurrently erred by decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs ignoring the documentary evidence, filed by the defendants, in regard to issuance of agenda, notice to members, meetings and resolutions.
(iii) Whether both the courts had jurisdiction to declare the amended byelaws of the Society having approval of Registrar Chits and Funds as null and void in absence of any declaration sought to that effect in the plaint?
Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the respondents requested three weeks’ time to file objection(s) to the Stay Application.
List this case on 06.03.2023.