LAWS(MPH)-2005-3-74

MAHILA GRIH UDYOG LIJJAT PAPAD Vs. PUSHPA BERRY

Decided On March 02, 2005
SHRI MAHILA GRIH UDYOG LIJJAT PAPAD Appellant
V/S
PUSHPA BERRY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision, by the defendant/applicant is directed against the order dated 11-12-2003 passed in Civil Suit No. 2-A/2003 by the VIIIth Civil Judge, Class II, Jabalpur, whereby its application under Section 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed.

(2.) THE defendant/applicant is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is also registered as a public trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The object of the Society, according to its memorandum of association, is to promote various social, economic, educational, cultural activities or any profitable field of activity and activities like giving scholarship, medical aid, etc. to needy persons. To achieve this object, the defendant/applicant undertook the activity of making papad for which it engaged women who were willing to abide by its object. Any woman could become the member of the defendant/applicant by working with it. The defendant/applicant has many branches. In the year 1974 one branch was also opened in Jabalpur town. The plaintiff/non-applicant No. 1 was appointed as a Sanchalika of that branch. Some differences arose between the defendant/applicant and the working of the Jabalpur branch. Therefore, on 22-2-1978 a decision was taken by the Managing Committee of the defendant/applicant to close its Jabalpur branch. The decision was communicated to the plaintiff/non-applicant No. 1. Aggrieved by the decision dated 22-2-1978 the plaintiff/non-applicant No. 1 alongwith 190 members of Jabalpur Branch filed the suit in question on 9-3-1978 for declaration and injunction questioning the legality of decision dated 22-2-1978. Alongwith the plaintiff, an application for grant of temporary injunction was also filed. The Trial Court granted the temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. The order of temporary injunction was affirmed by the Superior Courts.

(3.) THE suit is, thus, pending since 1978. Now it is fixed for the recording of defendant/applicant's evidence.