PREM SINGH Vs. RUPINDER SINGH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE election for the Committee Members (Directors) of the Primary Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. Sarmala took place on 5th March, 1991. In all six Directors were to be elected. The Petitioner was elected after he defeated Respondent Rupinder Singh, Defendant No. 1. It is not in dispute that election of the Petitioner could be challenged under Rule 12(2) of Appendix 'C' of the rules framed under the Punjab Co -operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). After the election of the Directors, election of the office bearers including, nomination of two more Directors was fixed for 25th March, 1991. Respondent No. 1. instead of filing election petition as provided under Rule 12(2) of the Rules challenging the election of the Petitioner, filed suit for permanent injunction restraining Defendant No. 1 (Petitioner) from participating and voting in the election of the office bearers and co -option of members -Directors in the meeting of the Board of Directors to be held on 25th March, 1991. In the plaint, it was alleged that the election of the Petitioner is illegal as he was wrongly, declared elected in the election. It was also alleged in the suit that the Petitioner connived with the counting staff and the Presiding Officer concerned. The Plaintiff further alleged that the Plaintiff is going to file election petition before the competent authority. Along with suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure was fixed seeking ad -interim injunction in the terms prayed in the suit. The learned trial Court, - -vide order dated 22nd March, 1991 passed the following order:

(2.) AS the Petitioner was restrained from participating in the election of the office bearers, other two Directors who were in the group of the Petitioner also did not participate in the meeting of the Board of Directors and the meeting was attended only by three members. Because of non -participation by three members, Respondent No. 1 was co -opted as a Director. The Petitioner came to know about the order only on 25th March, 1991, when the election of the office bearers and co -option of other two Directors was to be held. On coming to know of the order dated 22nd March, 1991, the Petitioner filed an application on 28th March, 1991 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for vacation of ex parte order dated 22nd March, 1991. Notice of this application was given to Respondent No. 1 for 2nd April, 1991 and on that day counsel for Respondent No. 1 (Plaintiff in the suit) made as statement that he does not want to proceed with the case and the same may be dismissed as withdrawn. This statement was made as the purpose which the Respondent No. 1 wanted to achieve, had already been achieved. However, Petitioner pressed before the trial Court that his application under Order XXXIX Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 of the said Code be decided on merits despite the statement given by counsel for the Plaintiff for the dismissal of the suit. The trial Court in order to undo the mischief decided the application on 2nd April. 1994 and the material portion of the order reads as under:

(3.) THE civil revision has been contested by Respondent No. 1.