VED PARKASH AGGARWAL Vs. YOG SADHNA TRUST INTERNATIONAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this Civil Revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution, are the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No.4440 of 2013 of 23.07.2013/ 06.09.2013 on the file of the learned District Judge, Kurukshetra (hereinafter, 'the trial Court'). The said suit was filed by them seeking a declaration to the effect that the Supplementary Trust Deed No.508 dated 14.11.2008 and the subsequent Supplementary Trust Deed No.272 dated 10.07.2012, apart from the Resolutions dated 18.11.1997, 21.08.2008, 12.03.2012, 09.06.2012 and 18.08.2012, were illegal, null, void and not binding upon them. They sought a further declaration that their removal from trusteeship and induction of defendants No. 16 to 23 as trustees, by way of the Supplementary Trust Deeds, was also illegal, null and void. Further, they sought a declaration that they were the Managing Trustees of the Trust, i.e., Yog Sadhna Trust International (Registration No.250 vide Trust Deed dated 31.05.1997 registered on 12.06.1997). In addition to the aforestated declaratory reliefs, they also sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from alienating the suit property or changing the nature thereof. Alternatively, they sought a decree for possession of the suit property in favour of the Trust, if the trial Court came to the conclusion that the Trust or its Trustees were not in possession of the suit property.

(2.) While so, defendants No.23 to 26 in the suit filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, 'the Act of 1996'), seeking reference of the suit disputes to the named Arbitrator, as per the original Trust Deed dated 31.05.1997 as well as the Supplementary Trust Deed dated 14.11.2008. By order dated 23.04.2014, the trial Court accepted their plea and referred the matter to the named Arbitrator, Swami Gurudev Muni Ji, Founder. He was directed to pass an Award in respect of the suit claims after hearing both the parties. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs in the suit filed the present.

(3.) As no stay order was passed in this revision, it appears that the named Arbitrator pronounced the Award. However, when this aspect was brought to the notice of this Court on 14.09.2016, the learned counsel for the petitioners/ plaintiffs contended that as the very appointment of the Arbitrator by the trial Court, vide the order under revision, is under challenge, the passing of the Award in the meanwhile would have no significance, in the event this Court ultimately holds in favour of the plaintiffs on the issue of appointment of the Arbitrator. It may be noted that the subject application under Section 8 of the Act of 1996 was filed before the trial Court by respondents/defendants No.23 to 26 only. They are, therefore, the contesting parties in this revision.