Y S PARMAR UNIVERSITY OF HORTICULTURE AND FORESTRY NAUNI SOLAN HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. DELHI CHINMAYA SEWA TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the Y.S.Parmar University is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11th September, 2009 whereby he permitted the trustees of the Delhi Chinmaya Sewa Trust i.e. respondents No. 2 to 11 herein to be impleaded as plaintiffs in the suit.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the University entered into an agreement with the Delhi Chinmaya Sewa Trust (here-in-after referred to as the trust) and by means of this agreement the trust was asked to run a school in the premises of the appellant-University. The trust through Col. S.C.Vohra filed a suit that the original defendants No. 1 to 3, who were not trustees of the trust, had wrongly been put in possession of the property as executive members of the Chinmaya Educational Society, Nauni, Solan. The entire suit was against these defendants 1 to 3 and defendant No.4 Chinmaya Education Society and the prayer made was that a decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants No. 1 to 3. The first relief prayed was that the appointment of defendants No. 1 to 3 in the governing body of defendant No.4 by substituting the nominees of the plaintiff be declared null and void. On this basis the use and occupation charges of the premises should also be paid.

(3.) THE main grievance of Shri R.L.Sood, learned senior counsel for the University is that the suit which was not maintainable and the very basis of the suit is without jurisdiction and therefore this inherent lack of jurisdiction cannot be made good by impleading the trustees at a later stage. We may make it clear that merely by impleading the trustees as parties in the suit, the question whether the suit was inherently not maintainable has not been decided by the learned Single Judge. It will be open at the time of hearing of the preliminary issue for the appellant University to contend that the mere impleading of the other trustees will not validate the initial defect in the suit. This question need not be gone into in appeal and it would be for the learned Single Judge to decide this question. We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of this question. We, therefore, reject the appeal with the observations made here-in-above. All pending applications are disposed of accordingly. No costs.