KHADI ASHRAM Vs. HIMACHAL KHADI ASHRAM SHIMLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the judgment dated 14.9.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 80- S/14 of 2009 alongwith order dated 30.10.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.6, Shimla in case No. 39/6 of 2009.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "plaintiff" for convenience sake) filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioner-defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant" for convenience sake), its office bearers, employees or any other person claiming through them to interfere in any manner with the working management or affairs of plaintiff society or its branches. The society has its own constitution and bye-laws and is governed by the governing body and Board of Trustees. Initially, the defendant society was managing the affairs of Khadi Gramudyog but in the year 1979, the defendant society was decentralized. The plaintiff society is accountable to Khadi and Village Industries Commission. A tripartite agreement was executed between Khadi and Village Industries Commission on the one hand and the plaintiff society and defendant society. The defendant-society started causing interference with the affairs of the society. The role of the defendant-society is only advisory. The plaintiff has also filed an application under order 39 rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restraining the defendant from causing any type of interference in the affairs of the society of the plaintiff.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant. According to the defendant, the bye-laws of the plaintiffsociety clearly stated that the Secretary of the defendant- society would be the President of the plaintiff-society also. Plaintiff-society is subject to supervision and control of defendant-society in all affairs. The defendant-society has also claimed that the movable and immovable properties of the defendant-society is being used by the plaintiff society. Therefore, the defendant society has right of supervision, control and management over the functioning of the plaintiff. All the employees and their functioning are subject to the control of the defendant society. The defendant has prayed for the dismissal of the application.