SANATAN DHARAM SABHA REGD Vs. NARESH CHAND AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shree Sanatam Dharam Sabha (Regd.) plaintiff is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (for short "the Act") which inter alia runs schools and manages religious places at Shahdara. Its affairs are managed by a Managing Committee of 17 persons elected on the basis of election by its members. The Managing Committee has a President, Vice-President, Secretary, Joint Secretary and Treasurer. It appears that the disputes about elections to its Managing Committee has become a perpetual feature. Earlier elections were notified for 19.1.1992. Only 17 persons submitted their nomination which were found valid and they were declared elected. The election was challenged by two persons, namely, S /Shri Om Prakash Seerawala and Ram Kishore Gupta in Suit No. 3048/92 titled as Shri Sanatam Dharam Sabha (Regd.) 6- Ors. v. Shri Parmanand Gupta & Ors.. A settlement was arrived at between the parties, and a joint application (LA. No. 2375/94) under Order 23, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code agreeing for holding fresh elections under the supervision of three persons, namely, S / Shri Satish Chand Aggarwal, Dr. Narender Nath and Shiv Shankar Sharaf, was filed along with a list of 311 members eligible to vote. That compromise was accepted by this Court. Elections were held on 10.4.1994 and the new Managing Committee was constituted which took over charge on 11.4.1994. Some members convened separate meeting and constituted a parallel Managing Committee. Thus fresh disputes arose between the parties. Nine of the members (plaintiffs 2 to 10) elected on 10.4.1994 filed the present suit impleading the remaining 8 members (defendant Nos. 1 to 8) of the Managing Committee besides some other persons seeking, inter alia, declaration that the election held on 10.4.1994 was valid and the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5 were validly elected as President, Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer of the plaintiff No. 1 and they alongwith defendants 1 to 8 constituted the Managing Committee and that a parallel Managing Committee constituted by defendants was illegal. An interim order was passed by this Court on 30.5.1994 restraining the defendants from holding meetings of the Executive Committee of the Society by associating defendant Nos. 9 to 12. However, meeting of the Executive Committee could be held associating plaintiff Nos. 2 to 10 and defendant Nos. 1 to 8 only who were elected on 10.4.1994 and defendants were further restrained from interfering in the right of the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5 to function as the office bearers of the plaintiff No. 1. The suit dragged for about 4 years without any progress when on 3.4.1998 with the consent of the Counsel for the parties, a retired Additional District and Sessions Judge was appointed as an Administrator to hold elections to the Managing Committee. For that purpose the following order was passed by this Court:

(2.) The documents were not handed over to the Administrator within one week and the Administrator was actually approached by the Secretary of the plaintiff only on 13.5.1998 and the relevant papers as ordered were still not given to him. Elections were held under his supervision on 19.7.1998 in which 16 persons got clear majority of vote whereas two persons namely S / Shri Iqbal Chand and Parma Nand Gupta secured 127 votes each and as such there as a tie among these two persons.

(3.) Dispute was raised before the Administrator about the members of the society who were entitled to vote. Plaintiff's group /Secretary had supplied a list of 442 members out of which 148 members were disputed and similarly the defendants furnished a list of 198 members alleged to have also been enrolled by them. After hearing the parties, the learned Administrator vide his reasoned order dated 9.7.1998 rejected the claim of the defendants in respect of 198 members and found only 311 persons eligible to vote. Six persons, namely S/Shri Prem Chand Singhal, Anil Kumar, Dushyant Kumar Tyagi, Satya Prakash Gupta, Arun Kumar and Saran Dass filed here application I.A. No. 5647/98 under Order 1, Rule 10 for being impleaded as voters in the election. After the elections were held and the report of the Administrator wassubmitted, this Court vide order dated 10.8.1998, allowed the parties to file objections against the report. The defendants did not file any objections. Plaintiffs have alleged having filed objections on 16.10.1998. However, these are not available and it appears that these were returned with some objections and were not refiled. The plaintiffs thereafter filed I.A. 3421 /2000 pointing out that they had filed the objections on 16.10.1998 which were not available on record nor traceable and desired to file a copy of these objections. Defendant Nos. 2 to 11 had filed reply to the applications filed by six applicants as well as against the objections filed by the plaintiffs on the basis of advance copy supplied to them earlier. Subsequently, further objections have been filed on behalf of 23 more persons on 16.7.1999 (LA. 6960/99) long after.