BHAGWAN MAHAVEER EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY REGD Vs. RAJESH JINDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of three applications preferred by two of the plaintiffs, claiming review of an earlier order dated 19th May, 2010, which had finally disposed of the suit. The two other applications, seek condonation of delay in filing the review petition, and an ad-interim direction.

(2.) BRIEF facts, for the purpose of this suit, are that the first plaintiff claims to be a registered society; the second plaintiff claims to have been its president, and the other two plaintiffs, its members, as well as office bearers of the governing council of the first plaintiff (hereafter "the society"). The suit claims decrees of declaration, that the second, third and fourth defendants are not lawfully inducted members of the society. It is alleged that the first defendant deliberately manipulated and forged the records of the society, to show as if the said three members had been inducted, even though actually the agenda for the relevant meetings never listed any item in that regard, and despite absence of any discussion. It is also alleged that the minutes of meeting of the managing committee were further falsified and manipulated by the first defendant, to say that the said three defendants had been accepted as members, and had even attended later meetings in February 2007. The suit alleges that the first defendant sought to circulate an agenda, by which a general meeting of the society was purportedly called, and elections were held on 2-4-2007. The plaintiffs further argue that the second plaintiff sent a notice on 20th March, 2007, and followed it up with notices published in the newspapers, cautioning that no such general meeting and elections could be held. The suit alleges that despite these, the first defendant held out that a meeting was held on that date, and election of office bearers of the society had taken place. The suit also urges that the first defendant thus usurped the society, claiming to be its President, and started manipulating its records, and even operating bank accounts, which is contrary to the Rules and Regulations as well as constitution governing the society. On these averments, the plaintiffs claim the reliefs sought in the suit. Consequential injunctions mandatory and perpetual are sought to the effect that the elections held on 2-4-2007 are void and illegal.

(3.) IT appears that after the suit was disposed of, an appeal was preferred before the Division Bench, being RFA (OS) 58/2010, claiming that the order was passed upon the statement of defendants' counsel, who had no instructions or authority in that regard. The appeal was subsequently permitted to be withdrawn by the Division Bench on 02.07.2010. The Division Bench, in its order listed the names of the successful candidates on the basis of the report of the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court and also required that the report of that Commissioner ought to be made available to this Court in the event the appellants/defendants preferred a review petition.