BANKEY BEHARI LAL AGGARWAL Vs. SHIV MANDIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order impugned is the order dated 04.05.2002 vide which on an application filed by the defendant under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") the suit proceedings i.e. suit No. 207/2002 (representative suit under Sections 91 & 92 of the Code) had been stayed.

(2.) The first suit No. 123/2000 had been filed by four plaintiffs Bankey Behari Lal Aggarwal & others against Shiv Mandir (Gufawala) and others; this was a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction as also for rendition of accounts. The averments made in plaint and the prayers which were six in number have been perused. The gist of the case of the plaintiffs was that the defendants who are running the Shiv Mandir Society must render accounts of the manner in which the funds of the society are being utilized; no third party interest qua the property of the society should be created during the pendency of the suit; the plaintiffs have a right to get their membership renewed and persons who are aspirants and willing to become members should also be considered on the payment of necessary charges. Admittedly this suit was in progress at the time when the second suit was filed. It is not in dispute that in this suit an application for amendment had been filed to make it a representative suit which prayer had been rejected.

(3.) The second suit i.e. Suit No. 207/2002 was filed by 10 plaintiffs against six defendants; this was a suit under Sections 91 & 92 of the Code. Admittedly before the suit could proceed, leave had to be taken from the concerned Court which had been granted and the suit proceeded. Vide the aforenoted application under Section 10 of the Code filed by the defendants a prayer was made seeking a stay of the present proceedings as the matter in issue in the present suit and the earlier suit were the same and as such the second suit could not proceed. The averments made in the present suit as also prayers made therein have been perused. The gist of this second suit which is a wider ambit in a representative capacity was to the same effect; prayer being that a decree of declaration be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants declaring that the defendants have no right to manage and control the administration of the temple, namely Shiv Mandir Sabha (Regd.) Society as also a direction to open the membership of the Society for the residents of the area who wish to become members on their paying requisite fee.