DELHI JAN SUDHAR SAMITI Vs. RAMESH CHAND GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TO recapitulate briefly, the controversy between the parties was with regard to elections of the Executive Committee of Delhi Jan Sudhar Samiti (hereinafter referred to as 'the Samiti'). The suit was filed in the name of the Samiti through one Mr. Subhash Chandra Roongta, claiming to be its General Secretary. In the suit filed by him, he alleged that the elections were held on 19.7.2000 in which he was elected as the General Secretary and various other members were also elected for different posts of the Governing Body of the Samiti. It was alleged that the defendants were not allowing them to function smoothly and were addressing letters to the Registrar of Societies, Samiti's bankers, etc. levelling false and misleading allegations against them. The prayer was, accordingly, made in the suit to declare that they were the true Governing Body entitled to run, administer and control the 18 Jan Suvidha Complexes which were given to the Samiti and prayed for restraining the defendants by permanent injunction from representing themselves as the elected members of the Samiti. Other consequential prayers were also made. The suit was filed on the original side of this Court. An order dated 12.3.2003 was passed by the learned single Judge of this Court appointing Justice Avadh Bihari Rohatgi (Retd.) as the Court Officer to finalize the membership and conduct the elections. The learned Court Officer conducted the elections and submitted his report to the Court. As per the elections conducted, the defendant No. 1 was elected as the President. In the meantime, due to the enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court, the matter was transferred to the District Court. The learned Court Officer submitted his report before the trial court. Mr. Roongta filed objections to this report, which were rejected vide order dated 10.12.2004 and result of the elections was declared. That order was challenged by Mr. Roongta in this Court unsuccessfully as the petition was dismissed vide order dated 3.2.2005. Appeal against that order also met the same fate and the Supreme Court dismissed it on 18.3.2005. In this conspectus, the learned trial court framed the following preliminary issue:

(2.) ARGUMENTS were heard on this preliminary issue and vide impugned judgment dated 20.1.2007 the issue has been decided in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff resulting into the dismissal of the suit. Challenging this order, the present appeal is filed.

(3.) THOUGH the reasons given by the learned trial court dismissing the suit shall be taken note of in detail at appropriate places, suffice it to mention, at this stage, that the impugned judgment reveals that the thought process of the trial court was as under: