PARMA NAND DODA Vs. SHREE SANATAN DHARAM SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of Additional District Judge, Sonepat dated 1. 2. 1992 whereby the order of the trial Court dated 28. 1991 dismissing the application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was upheld. Aggrieved against the orders of the Courts below the plaintiffs have filed the present revision petition.

(2.) IN brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that Shri Sanatan Dharam Sabha (hereinafter referred to as the defendant Society) is a registered Society under the Haryana Societies Act and the said Society manages temples, educational Institutions and undertakes to preach religion and work for social uplift according to the principles of Sanatan Dharma. The plaintiffs are members of the said defendant Society from the very beginning of its formation and had been attending meetings of the general body of the defendant Society. It was next pleaded that they tried to pay the annual sub-scription to the defendants but the defendants have been avoiding to receive the same on one pretext or the other. The plaintiffs also approached the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur with its branch at Sonepat, for depositing the annual membership subscription of the defendant Society in its account with the said Bank but the office bearers of the defendant Society instructed the Bank not to accept any membership fee from the plaintiffs. It was further averred that some of the plaintiffs sent their subscription through money order but the same was refused by the defendants who wanted to terminate the membership of the plaintiffs for non-payment of the annual subscription fee as members to which they have no right. The plaintiffs accordingly filed suit for declaration to the effect that they are members of the defendant Society and continue to be so till date and defendants be restrained from terminating their membership and be also restrained from enrolling fresh members. On similar grounds application for grant of temporary injunction was moved by the plaintiffs. The learned trial Court initially granted ad interim injunction against the defendants.

(3.) THE defendants contested the suit as well as the stay application. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs are no longer members of the defendant Society as they have already forfeited their membership. It was pleaded that plaintiff No. 6 has already shifted to Delhi where he is residing with his family members and as such is no longer resident of Sonepat and cannot continue as member of the defendant Society ; that according to Rule 2 sub Rule (iv) of Rules and Regulations of the Society, a person who is not a resident of Sonepat, cannot continue as member of the defendant Society ; that vacancies caused have been filled up according to Rules and Regulations of the Society. It was also pleaded that plaintiff Nos. 7 and 8 i. e. Bhagwan Dass and Harish Nagpal have not paid the annual subscription for the year 1990-91 according to the orders passed by Shri Lalit Batra, Sub judge Ist Class, Sonepat and they are no longer members of the defendant Society. Ram Saran Dass and Ram Narain plaintiff Nos 9 and 10 have not deposited their annual subscription for the year 1991-92 which was to be paid on 15 7. 1991 and they also forfeited their membership It was next pleaded that plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 and 11 did not deposit the requisite annual subscription, which has been raised to Rs. 101/-, for the year 1991-92 and the same was to be deposited by 15 7. 1991 in the office of the defendant Society with the General Secretary or the President of the defendant Society ; that on account of vacancies caused due to forfeiture of the memberships of the plaintiffs, new members had already been taken by the governing body of the defendant Society in their meeting held on 22. 7. 1991 and the suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable.