S P SUBBA Vs. SUKHIM YAKTHUNG SAPSOK SONGJUMBHO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner herein impugns the Order dated 31- 07-2018 in Title Suit No.05 of 2017 of the Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chungthang Sub-Division, North Sikkim, stationed at Gangtok, by which the prayer of the Petitioner seeking to amend the written statement was disallowed and the Petition dismissed.

(2.) Briefly, the facts put forth by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner was that the "Sukhim Yakthung Sapsok Songjumbho" (Sikkim Limboo Literary Society) was formed in the year 1979 for improvement and development of Limboo literature and culture. It is a registered body with a constitution, permitting only registered members to participate in the elections of the Society. On 04-12-2016, a General Body Meeting was held wherein it was resolved that elections for the new Executive Body of the Society would be held only after 31- 03-2017 towards which a notice was issued to all concerned on 11-03-2017, informing therein that, election for the office bearers of the Society would be held in the second week of April, 2017. In the interim, Title Suit No.05 of 2017 came to be filed by the Respondent, against the Petitioner, before the Court of the Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), East Sikkim, at Gangtok, and vide Order of ex parte ad interim injunction on 07-04-2017 the Petitioner was injuncted from holding elections. Later, on 28-10-2017 the Title Suit was dismissed in default on account of the non-appearance of the Respondent before the Learned Trial Court. Subsequently, the Learned Trial Court restored the Suit to its File on 01-11-2017, setting aside its own Order of dismissal sans Notice to the Petitioner. The matter came before this High Court with the Petitioner assailing the Order of restoration. This Court on 30-11-2017 set aside the impugned Order and the Suit was restored to the File. That, from the facts and circumstances placed above, according to the Petitioner, from 28-10-2017 to 09-04-2018 the latter being the date on which the restoration application was allowed, no Suit was pending before the Learned Trial Court. In such circumstance, on 06-11-2017 the registered members elected and constituted a new Executive Body as the term of the previous Executive Body had expired on July, 2014. That, after restoration of the Suit, in order to bring the aforesaid circumstances before the Learned Trial Court, the Petitioner filed an Application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), seeking to amend the written statement and also to insert a counter-claim. This was dismissed by the impugned Order dated 31-07-2018, hence the instant Petition. To bolster his submissions Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. vs. K. K. Modi and Ors., 2006 AIR(SC) 1647 : and Shri Subash Gupta vs. Shri Yadap Nepal, 2017 SLR.424 Sikkim.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent while vehemently repudiating the Petition inter alia on grounds that exhaustive amendments are sought which would naturally require the Respondent to also amend the Plaint, postulated that, the amendments sought would not only change the entire nature and character of the Suit, but would prejudice the case of the Respondent. That, infact the election held on 06-11-2017 and the constitution of a new body were mala fide and the Petitioner had failed to take steps on time as required, for the benefit of the Society following which an ad hoc Committee was constituted by the Respondent and later on 12-03-2017 an election was conducted and new Executive Committee constituted for two years. That, the facts as projected by the Petitioner are erroneous and the amendments sought to be inserted apart from deserving a dismissal, do not assist in the administration of justice. The Writ Petition being mis-conceived and devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed. Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent garnered strength from Karma Denka Bhutia vs. Sarki Lamu, 2005 AIR(Sik) 1, A. K. A. CT. V. CT. Meenakshisundaram Chettiar vs. A. K. A. CT. V. CT. Venkatachalam Chettiar, 1980 AIR(Mad) 105 and Kaluram vs. Shakuntala Devi, 1992 AIR(Raj) 6.