Unknown vs Others") For Perpetual ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 377 UK

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                 AT NAINITAL


             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

                     13th FEBRUARY, 2023

                SECOND APPEAL NO. 132 of 2022

Between:

Prithvi Raj Chauhan Mahavidhyalaya Sabha and Others
                                             ...Appellants

and

Virendra Kumar Singh (Deceased) and Others
                                          ...Respondents


Counsel for the Appellants         :   Mr. Siddhartha Singh.

Counsel for the respondents        :   Mr. Siddhartha Sah.
Hon'ble 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. Heard Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for

the appellants and Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for

the respondents.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. The said rival submissions can be raised by the

respective counsel at the time of final hearing.

10. 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?

11. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the

respondents requested three weeks' time to file objection(s)

to the Stay Application.

12. List this case on 06.03.2023.

___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Dt: 13.02.2023 Shiksha