MURTI SINGH RAGHUNATHJI Vs. JOGINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R .S.A. 290 of 1967 is directed against an order, dated 6th February, 1967, of the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, by which he rejected the appeal of the plaintiff under Order 41, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, on the ground that it had not been filed by a person duly authorised by the plaintiff, namely, Moorti Shri Raghunath Ji installed in temple situated at Jagadhri. It arises out of the following facts :

(2.) MOORTI Shri Raghnnath Ji installed in Temple situate at Jagadhri instituted a suit for perpetual induction, restraining Dependents 1 to 7 from transferring possession of the suit -property to Defendant No. 8 (D.A.V. College Managing Committee ) and Defendant No. 9(Shri Ram Lal, Headmaster G.S.A. High School, Yamunangar) and also for restraining Respondents 8 and 9 from entering into possession of the suit -property and making constructions thereon. The Subordinate Judge, Jagadhri, partly decreed the suit against Defendants 1 to 4, 8 and 9, but dismissed the same as against Defendants 5 to 7. Against that decree, the plaintiff went up in appeal to the District Judge A. preliminary objection was raised before the Additional District Judge, that the appeal had not been properly filed, inasmuch as it was not filed by the plaintiff or any person authorised by Shri Dharam Asthan Committee, who was acting on behalf of the plaintiff as the Mohtmim. This objection prevailed with the Additional District Judge, who, in consequence, rejected the appeal. Hence this second appeal against the order of the Additional District Judge.

(3.) Learned counsel on behalf of the appellant contends that the plaint in the suit had been signed by the Chairman and the Secretary of Shri Dharam Asthan Committee, who had engaged Shri Laxmi Chand as counsel for the plaintiff in pursuance of a resolution passed by Shri Dharam Asthan Committee, Dr. Rameshwar Dass, President, and Shri Brij Lal, Secretary of the Committee had signed the power of attorney in favour of Shri Laxmi Chand, Advocate, who was authorised thereunder to file an appeal to the District Judge. It is stressed that the appeal was only a continuation of the original suit, and the authority given by the Committee per its resolution, dated 21st October, 1964, will include an authority to file an appeal from any adverse decision of the trial Court. Thus, it is maintained that there was sufficient compliance with the requirements of Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Act No. 21 of 1860) (hereinafter called 'the Act'). It is further pointed out that the provisions of Order 41, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, are discretionary as is indicated by the word 'may', and that in these circumstances, when the memorandum of appeal had been signed by Shri Laxmi Chand, Advocate, who was the duly constituted attorney of the Committee, the Additional District Judge should not have rejected the appeal, but given further time to the appellant to remove the defect, if any, in the memorandum of appeal In support of his contention, Mr. M. P. Maleri has referred to Lohku and another v. Bhola Ram : A.I.R. 1952 H.P. 62.