Shri Sai Bhakta Samaj Thr. Its ... vs Sh. Kailash Chander Verma & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 6006 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         CM(M) No. 37/2014

%                                             20th November, 2014

SHRI SAI BHAKTA SAMAJ THR. ITS MANAGING COMMITTEE
                                     .....Petitioner

                          Through:       Mr. Kunal Kalra, Adv.


                          VERSUS

SH. KAILASH CHANDER VERMA & ORS.      ...... Respondents
                  Through: Mr.Prannoy Dey and Mr. Vikalp
                           Mudgal, Adv. for R-2 and 3.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.            Petitioner, who is the defendant no.2 in the suit, impugns the

consent order of the trial court dated 10.10.2013 which appoints an

Administrator.


2.    Once the impugned order is a consent order, the same cannot be

challenged because it is a consent order. The principle contained in Section

96(3) read with Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)

prevents challenge to a consent order.
CMM 37/2014                                                              Page 1 of 3
 3.    The relevant portion of the impugned order showing consent of the

petitioner/defendant No.2 reads as under:-


              ".... I am of the view that some independent Administrator
              should be appointed to manage affairs of defendant no.2.
              Further defendants have not opposed appointment of
              Administrator to manage affairs of defendant no.2.
              Accordingly application of plaintiff is allowed.
                    An application has been filed by applicants under Section
              151 CPC for passing urgent directions in which prayer has been
              made to fix date of election and direct Sh. L.S.Solanki to
              comply with the same. Became of my discussion while dealing
              with application of plaintiff under Section 151 CPC for
              appointment of Administrator, I am of the view that elections
              immediately cannot be held and therefore application of
              applicants is dismissed.
                     Plaintiff, Mr. Deepak Nabe (present in court today on
              account of his in which he is plaintiff) and counsels for
              defendants have submitted that some High Rank IAS Officials
              should be appointed Administrator in present case. It has been
              agreed that Secretary, Department of Art, Culture and language,
              Govt. of NCT of Delhi be appointed as Administrator of
              defendant no.2 and accordingly Secretary, Department of Art,
              Culture and language, Govt. of NCT of Delhi is hereby
              appointed as Administrator of defendant no.2, Administrator is
              being appointed as Designation and whoever mans this post,
              should take over as Administrator of defendant no.2, I am
              aware that it will be difficult for Secretary, Department of Art,
              Culture and language, Govt. of NCT of Delhi to manage
              additional load considering the important post he/she is
              occupying in the Government but at the same time I am
              confident that people occupying such high post are of caliber
              required for doing the job efficiently and keeping his/her stature
              in mind, it will be a comparatively easy job for him/her rather
              than for someone else. Present Managing Committee is
              directed to handover all the record to Administrator at his/her
CMM 37/2014                                                                  Page 2 of 3
               asking. Administrator is given full powers to manage affairs of
              defendant no.2 till further orders. Administrator is directed to
              take care of all the functions of Managing Committee of
              defendant no.2. Administrator is to file audited accounts of
              defendant no.2 every quarter. Administrator is further
              empowered to employ persons of his/her choice keeping in
              mind the level of competence and qualifications he/she requires
              to assist him in managing affairs of defendant no.2 and their
              remuneration is to be paid out of accounts of defendant no.2."
                                                          (underlining added)
4.    Counsel for petitioner argues that consent was not given but I cannot

accept the argument as in law I have to take the judicial record as final. If

consent is given and so mentioned in the impugned order, then a person who

alleges that the consent was not given, such a person must approach that

very court which records the judicial proceedings to get the order corrected

and the petitioner should have immediately approached the same Court

which has recorded the judicial proceedings showing consent in terms of the

decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs.

Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr. (1982) 2 SCC 463. Before the appellate

court no arguments to the contrary can be urged that consent was not given

as per the ratio of Ramdas' case (supra).


5.    Dismissed.


NOVEMBER 20, 2014                                 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib