AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the orders dated 18.07.2013 (Annex.4) and 08.05.2019 (Annex.6) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Jodhpur Metro and Additional District Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metro, whereby the application filed by the respondent No.1-plaintiff under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 & 2 CPC has been accepted and the appeal filed by the petitioners has been rejected, respectively.
The suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for permanent & mandatory injunction and declaration in relation to the petitioner-Trust seeking permanent injunction against the defendants from acting pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.05.2011, which was published in the news-paper on 31.05.2011; declaration that the said advertisement was void & ineffective and mandatory injunction that if any elections are held for the trust, the same be done as per Regulations of 1957 by preparing voters list under it and democratically.
Alongwith the suit, the application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 & 2 CPC was filed seeking an injunction qua the advertisement dated 30.05.2011, published in the news-paper dated 31.05.2011.
The application seeking injunction was resisted by the petitioners with the submission that after the Regulations of 1957, fresh regulations have been made / amended in the year 1987 and 2001 and based on which, already elections have been held in the past and the steps were now being taken and the applicant was, therefore, not entitled to any relief.
After hearing both the parties, the trial court by its order dated 18.07.2013, came to the conclusion that the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan by his order dated 13.01.2010 has quashed the amended Rules of 1987 & 2001 and therefore, as the said Rules were not in existence, the plaintiff had prima facie case and based on the same, balance of convenience and irreparable injury were also found in his favour and consequently, it was directed as under :-
"चूँकि प्रथम दृष्टया मामला, सुविधा का सन्तुलन एवं अपूर्णीय क्षति तीनों ही बिन्दु उपरोक्तानुसार प्रार्थी के पक्ष में तय किये गये हैं। अतः प्रार्थी का प्रार्थना पत्र बाबत अस्थाई निषेधाज्ञा स्वीकार किया जाकर आदेश दिया जाता है कि मूल वाद के निस्तारण तक अप्रार्थीगण मौहल्लेवार मतदाता सूची व आजीवन सदस्य एवम दानदाता सदस्य बनाने व चुनाव संबंधी कोई भी कार्यवाही श्री पुष्टिकर एज्युकेशन ट्रस्ट के संविधान व नियमावली 1957 के अनुसार ही करें।"
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal against the order dated 18.07.2013.
The appellate court, after hearing the parties, reiterated the findings recorded by the trial court and rejected the appeal filed by the petitioners.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that both the courts below fell in error in passing the order impugned, wherein the mandatory order has been granted, which amounts to granting the final relief in the suit and therefore, the order cannot be sustained.
Further submissions have been made that against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, the appeal filed by the petitioners is pending before the Commissioner, Devasthan and therefore, both the courts below committed error in relying on the said quashing of the amended Rules for finding a prima facie case in favour of the respondent No.1 and on that count also, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set-aside.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material available on record.
The facts are not in dispute, whereby the plaintiff based on the fact that the amendments made in the year 1987 & 2001, have been struck down by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan sought the Trust to follow the unamended provisions i.e. Regulations of 1957 and as the advertisements issued were contrary to the Regulations of 1957 sought directions that the Trust be directed to follow the Regulations of 1957.
The trial court, as noticed, on account of the undisputed facts regarding the amendments having been struck down by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, rightly found prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and as a consequence directed that the Regulations of 1957 be followed.
Submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners that such a mandatory direction, could not have been given, apparently has no basis, inasmuch as, once, the Court came to the conclusion that the amendments made in the year 1987 & 2001 have been struck down, the necessary corollary was that the original Regulations of 1957 sprang up and the Trust was then bound to follow the said Regulations and as such, the direction granted by the trial court cannot be faulted.
The plea raised that as the appeal is pending before the Commissioner, Devasthan, the direction as given could not have been given has been noticed only for rejecting the same, inasmuch as, it is not the case of the petitioners that the Commissioner, Devasthan has stayed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and therefore, mere pendency of the appeal cannot be a reason to ignore the order passed by the competent authority, qua the Regulations.
In view of the above discussion, no case for interference in the concurrent orders passed by the two courts below, is made in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed.