CHAIRMAN THE HYDERABAD GYMKHANA Vs. RAMESH AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners-Defendants filed this revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 {Code of Civil Procedure}, inter alia, seeking to assail the order dated 30.06.2007 in O.P. No. 2392 of 2005 on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in allowing the petition filed under Order VII Rule 1 read with Section 26 Code of Civil Procedure and under Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, 2001 {"the Act" for brevity}, filed seeking declaration of the action of the Defendants in terminating the Founder Membership bearing No. 58 of Gymkhana Club, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, without following due process of Memorandum of Association by issuing letter dated 13.09.2004, as null and void.

(2.) The facts, in brief, which are necessary for disposal of this revision, are that, admittedly, the first Respondent herein, who happened to be the Petitioner in the Court below {hereinafter called as the Petitioner}, is the Founder Member of the Gymkhana Club, which is a registered society under the Act. Under the Bye-laws of the Society, the Founder Member need not pay any Membership Fee. However, due to some unforeseen circumstances and as a result of the other involvements and attending certain duties, for some time, the Petitioner had to live in the Northern parts of the country with a view to return back to Hyderabad. Therefore, he requested his friend Mr. Rajan Khattar to approach the clerk for the purpose of renewal of Membership. Accordingly, the clerk informed Mr. Rajan Khattar that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid towards dues and Rs. 500/- towards re-entry fee. Thereafter, Mr. Rajan Khattar paid the said amount on 26.04.2004 under receipt No. 27453. In spite of the payment, according to the Petitioner, a General Body meeting was held on 26.09.2003 and as per agenda No. 5 under the head "Ratification of Readmission of ceased members", four members were readmitted by collecting necessary fee and the Petitioner was informed by letter dated 13.09.2004 that his membership was not revived.

(3.) Therefore, according to the Petitioner, refusal to admit him as a Founder Member is wholly misconceived and arbitrary and in fact, he is entitled to continue as a Founder Member without any demur. Prior to filing of the present revision, the Petitioner filed W.P. No. 2261 of 2004, which was disposed of with an observation that the Petitioner can avail the remedy under the Act. Hence, the Petitioner filed O.P. No. 2392 of 2005.