JAYANT VRAJLAL AJMERA Vs. JAYANTKUMAR MOTICHAND DOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since we are not inclined to grant leave to the applicants herein for preferring letters Patent Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge (Coram: A. M. Ahmadi J.) dated 24/09/1984 in Civil Revision Application No. 808 of 1984 directing inter alia the respondent No. 1 to convene a meeting of the Sthanakvasi Jain Mota Sangh of Rajkot latest by the end of October 1984 after giving a fortnights notice of the meeting to the members concerned by public advertisement in the newspaper a few relevant facts need be noticed in order to appreciate the reliefs which have been claimed by the applicants in the present civil application before we state our reasons in support of our view.

(2.) Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the President and Secretary respectively of the said Sangh. It appears that by letter of 24/12/1981 some members of the Sangh served a requisition on respondent No. 1 for calling a meeting of the Sangh and the items of the agenda for the proposed meeting inter alia included the topic of election of the never Managing Committee as well as the vote of no-confidence against the said respondents. It appears that in light of this requisition letter a number of legal proceedings ensued between the parties. It is not necessary to refer to all the legal proceedings which have ensued which are as many as twenty two but it would be pertinent to refer shortly to three suits and the proceedings arising therefrom for purposes of appreciating the reliefs of this application. Respondent No. 1 on behalf of himself and for and on behalf of the Sangh filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) Rajkot praying amongst other reliefs for injunction restraining the requisitionists to convene the meeting in case the President fails to convene the meeting as required in the requisition. This suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 106 of 1982 was filed on 25/01/1982 In course of the hearing of the suit the trial court made the Rule of injunction absolute restraining the requisitionists from holding the meeting. The matter was taken in appeal before the District Court Rajkot by way of Civil Appeal No. 140 of 1982 by the requisitionists where the District Court confirmed the injunction on the condition that the President shall convene a special general meeting within a period of three months from the date of the order failing which the injunction shall stand vacated and the requisitionists shall have right to assemble and discuss the items of the agenda as per the requisition letter and in the event of the said meeting passing any resolution affecting the Constitution of the Trust the said resolution shall not take effect till the same is registered as changes as per the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act.

(3.) The second important legal proceeding was the suit filed by the present applicants Nos. 1 and 2 who are the members of the Sangh being Regular Civil Suits Nos. 839 of 1983 and 712 of 1983 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Rajkot for injunction restraining the President from acting upon the order of the District Court in the aforesaid appeal. It appears that in Civil Suit No. 712 of 1983 which is at the instance of applicant No. 2 notice as to why injunction as prayed for should not be granted has been issued and is still to the heard while in Civil Suit No. 839 of 1983 which is at the instance of applicant No. 1 the trial Court granted injunction restraining the President from acting upon the aforesaid order. It appears further that the President respondent No. 1 herein has meanwhile preferred Civil Revision Application being Civil Revision Application No. 1079 of 1983 in this Court against the conditional order of injunction granted by the District Judge Rajkot as aforesaid. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the said revision application has by his order dated 6/02/1984 directed the President to convene the meeting of the Sangh latest by 30/04/1984 The learned Single Judge however partially allowed the revision application by deleting that part of the permission which the learned District Judge granted to the requisitionists to convene the meeting and discuss the resolutions and adopt them. The period for convening the meeting we are told has been extended from time to time though it is not clear from the record as it stands before us as to upto what date it has been extended.