Managing Committee, S.D. High School vs Kundan Lal

Sarojnei Saksena, J.—Plaintiff petitioner has filed this revision against the appellate Court''s order dated 13.12.1995, whereby the trial court''s order dismissing his injunction petition was affirmed.

In a nutshell, facts of the case are that the plaintiff in his personal capacity as well as in the capacity of President, Managing Committee, S.D. High School, Jind filed this suit for permanent injunction pleading that he is President and life member of S. D. High School, Jind, Managing Committee. The Managing Committee was elected in the year 1989, but it could not work in harmony due to various disputes. Shri S.P. Mishra, Manager of the Committee, filed the civil suit for permanent injunction against Shri Nand Kishore Gupta, Head Master, regarding some financial matters. Shri V.P. Bishnoi, Sub-Judge I Class, Jind passed as injunction order therein restraining Shri Nand Kishore Gupta to receive and disburse the amount of grantin-aid till the decision of the suit.

When appeal against that order was filed, parties entered into a compromise on 30.3.1991 wherein it was agreed that the President, the Vice President, the Secretary and the Manager of the School were allowed to exercise the financial powers relating to the affairs of the school. Vide Court''s order dated 22.8.1991, Manager of the Bank of India, Jind was directed to disburse the salary of the members of staff of the school. In that case when the persons mentioned in the compromise failed to pay the salary within a week of the month, then only plaintiffs came to know that the pay for the months of November and December 1992 were not paid in accordance with order of the Court and the pay was disbursed through Punjab National Bank, Jind. On an enquiry plaintiffs came to know that a bogus Managing Committee consisting of the defendants has been formed. Plaintiffs assailed the formation of the said managing committee, being against the constitution of the school; the election not being held in accordance with the provisions of the said S.D. High School, Jind, managing committee; he being President. Shri Nand Lal Batra had no authority under the said constitution to preside over any meeting and to transact any business; the Manager of the School is always sent by Sanatan Dharam Sabha, while in the present body of the School, no such name for the post of Manager was sent by Sanatan Dharam Sabha, Jind though defendant No. 4 is alleging himself to be the Manager of the said managing committee. Plaintiffs also assailed that the said election purporting to have been held by the defendants is illegal, null and void; these defendants were never elected as President, Vice President, Secretary and members of the managing committee; the two civil suits filed in the civil Court titled Ram Niwas v. Managing Committee and Harpal etc. v. Managing Committee, S.D. High School, Jind, are still pending but in those cases, it is not averred by the defendants that plaintiff No. 2 is no more President of the managing committee as in 1992 fresh elections have already been held; majority of the members of the managing committee formed in 1988-89 do not know about the said election because it was not properly published.

Plaintiffs also averred that these defendants were asked not to act as committee of the said school and not to use any financial power or to pass any resolution with regard to affairs of the school, but they paid no heed to plaintiffs'' request. Hence, they filed this suit for permanent injunction. Along with this suit, plaintiffs also filed the petition under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code, praying for ad interim injunction on the averments made in the plaint. Few affidavits were also filed in support of the petition.

Defendant No. 1-respondent appeared on his own and filed reply to the said petition. Defendant-respondent denied all the plaint allegations and objected that plaintiff No. 2 has no right to file the suit on behalf of the managing committee in the absence of any resolution passed to that effect by the managing committee. Managing Committee is a body corporate and suit can only be filed on behalf of the corporate body by duly authorised person through a resolution. Hence, the suit is not maintainable. It was also objected that plaintiff No. 2 Rishi Lal Goel never took an interest in the affairs of the said school, rather he was acting against the interest of the said school, which is apparent from the written statement filed by him, in those suits, which are pending against this school wherein he admitted all the plaint allegations. It is also pleaded that now Shri Rishi Lal Goel is no more President of the said school as defendant No. I/respondent has been elected as President of the managing committee in the election held on 14.11.1992. The District Education Officer, Jind vide his letter dated 17.12.1992 has also recommended for the approval of the managing committee. The Director of the Secondary Education, Haryana, Chandigarh has also approved the list of 23 members of the managing committee elected on 14/15.11.1992 vide his Memo dated 22.12.1992. The Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, Haryana, Chandigarh has also registered the managing committee on 10.12.1992 and has also issued a certificate in this regard containing the list of 23 members of the managing committee. After fresh election, the President of the Managing Committee is justified in managing the affairs of the school as per order of the Additional District Judge, Jind dated 30.3.1991. The arrangement made by that order about the financial matters was to remain effective till the decision of the case or holding a fresh election. The new managing committee was duly elected after adopting procedure required by the constitution of the school; public notice was given to the General Public by circulating hand-bills inviting the date of hearing and for becoming the voters of the school as well as for contesting the election on deposit of subscription to the school. Public notice was also given to the General Public by circulating ha; I bills vide which the objections were invited from the General Public against the voters list of the said school prepared for the election to be held on 15.11.1992. Defendant No. 1-respondent also pleaded that the notice of election programme was sent to plaintiff No. 2 Rishi Lal Goel Under Postal Certificate. During his tenure, Shri Rishi Lal Goel attended only two meetings held on 29.8.1989 and 7.10.1989 and thereafter he abstained from attending each and every meeting and in his absence, meetings were presided over by Shri Nand Lal Batra, Vice President. Election programme was chalked out in a meeting held on 16.9.1992; election of the remaining Executive Members was held on 15.11.1992. In this new election held on 14.11.1992, defendant No. 1 respondent Shri Kundan Lal is elected as President, Shri Nand Lal Batra Vice President and Dhan Raj Goel as Secretary and defendants 4 to 18 were elected Executive members of the managing committee in the election held on 15.11.1992. Defendants No. 19 is an Ex-officio member of the said school, being Head Master. Defendant 20 to 23 were nominated as members of the managing committee. On these averments, defendant No. 1-respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition.

After hearing arguments of both the parties, the lower Court dismissed the petition vide his order dated 12.1.1993. Plaintiffs assailed this order in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 84 of 1993, which was also dismissed on 13.12.1995.

Plaintiff-petitioner''s learned counsel vehemently argued that the trial court decided plaintiffs injunction petition in hot haste. Other respondents were not even noticed; only defendant No. 1-respondent appeared on his own and contested the petition. If other defendant-respondents would have been noticed, they might have supported the plaintiffs claim. He valiantly condemned the procedure adopted by the Courts below. They have failed to appreciate that holding of the election by defendant-respondent was contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of the school. Plaintiff No. 2 was elected President of the said managing committee. Many life members were not informed of the alleged election purporting to have been held by these defendant-respondents. They also illegally amended the Constitution of the Society reducing the number of members from 1871 to 225 and thus caused financial loss to the said managing committee. All the papers prepared by them are forged and fabricated documents. He also contended that had it been true that a fresh election had taken place in 1992, as alleged by defendant No. I/respondent, in two aforementioned civil suits, parties would have averred so. But in those suits, none of the parties averred that Rishi Lal "Goel, plaintiff is no more President of the managing committee. This fortifies the plaintiffs plea that no such elections were held in November and December, 1992. Learned counsel valiantly argued that defendant No. 1 has converted the said managing committee into his personal society and is mismanaging its affairs to his own advantage. He also commented that the appellate Court fell into further error in allowing the fresh elections to be held under the supervision and management of defendant No. 1-respondent.

Defendant-respondents'' learned counsel contended that in 1989 Shri Rishi Lal Goel-plaintiff was the President of the managing committee. He attended only two meetings in September and October 1989. Thereafter he showed his utter disinterestedness in the affairs on the managing committee. During the tenure of his presidentship, resolution was moved for amendment of the Constitution of the managing committee. As he declined to attend any meeting, the Vice President Shri N.L. Batra presided over the meeting. As per the Constitution, he has jurisdiction to preside over such meeting in the absence of the President and to exercise all powers of the President in the absence of the President. Thus, in his chairmanship all the meetings for amending the constitution of the managing committee and for holding fresh elections were held; notices to all the members were sent by post under U.P.C. Such a notice was given even to plaintiff Shri Rishi Lal Goel. Despite service of the said notice, he declined to attend any meeting. During arguments, respondents produced files and minutes of the managing committee showing how amendment was initiated, resolution to that effect was passed by the managing committee and how it was approved by the general body. In the minutes, all these proceedings are duly recorded. The meeting of general body was held on 12.4.1992 for which notices were sent to 135 members on 28.3.1992 by post under U.P.C. In this meeting even after being noticed Shri Rishi Lal Goel-plaintiff No. 2 declined to attend the meeting, it was conducted in the chairmanship of Vice President, Shri N.L. Batra. 92 persons attended this meeting. 4.11 the amendments in the Constitution were approved to be implemented from April 20, 1992. Respondents'' learned counsel also submitted that under the orders of the Vice President, fresh elections were held on 14.1.1996;227 persons were noticed and new managing committee has already been elected. Thus, according to him, the suit itself has become infructuous.

After going through the records submitted by the defendant-respondent, it becomes evident that in the meeting held on 29.1.1992 a committee was constituted to consider amendment. For this meeting also, Shri Rishi Lal Goel plaintiff No. 2 was noticed, but as he declined to attend this meeting, it was held under the chairmanship of Vice President, Shri N.L. Batra. Meeting held on 9.2.1992 was also not attended by Shri Rishi Lal Goel plaintiff No. 2. In this meeting, amendments in the constitution of the managing committee were proposed. For approval of these amendments, notices were sent by U.P.C. to the members of the general body on 18.2.1992 for the meeting to be held on 8.3.1992. In the list of these names, plaintiff''s name appears at serial No. 52. Despite being informed, plaintiff declined to attend the meeting, Hence, the meeting dated 8.3.1992 was again presided over by the Vice President, Shri N.L. Batra; 54 persons attended this meeting and passed amendment resolution.

The record further reveals that for the meeting to be held on 12,4.1992, notices were sent to the members of the general body on 28.3.1992 by post under U.P.C. Notices were sent to 135 members. In this list also, plaintiffs name appears at serial No. 52. As again this meeting was not attended by Shri Rishi Lal Goel, plafntiff, meeting of general body was held by Vice President, Shri N.L. Batra, who was the chairperson. 92 persons attended this meeting. All amendments were approved to be implemented from 20.4.1992. In the meeting held on 21.4.1992 again Shri Rishi Lal Goel was absent, 15 persons attended this meeting and Shri N.L. Batra was the chairperson. A glance of the Constitution makes it evident that a clause of the Constitution at page 5 defines powers, duties and responsibilities of the Vice President as unden:-

"He will officiate President in the absence of the President and will exercise his powers in that capacity."

Thus, it is evident that if in any meeting the President is absent, the meeting is to be presided over by the Vice President, and in such meetings, Vice President is authorised to exercise all the powers of President. Hence, plaintiffs learned counsel''s this objection is against the provisions of the Constitution that in his absence Shri N.L. Batra, Vice President, had no authority to preside over the meetings and to exercise any power. The amendment was approved by the general body. Amended copy of the Constitution was also placed on record. As per this amended copy, it is evident that earlier in Rule 2 of the Rules and Regulations of the Association, a person who donates Rs. 1000/- at a time can be its member. This amount was enhanced to Rs. 3100/-. In Rule 3 also subscription of Rs. 60/- was enhanced to Rs. 200/- and Rule 3(A) was also added that only the members who had been paying the subscription of Rs. 200/- per annum continuously for the last three years, patrons and life members will be eligible to cast and contest the election for Executive Committee. The proposal of these amendments were initiated when Shri Rishi Lal Goel plaintiff was President of the managing committee. Instead of objecting he abstained from attending such meetings and allowed the amendments to be passed and incorporated in the Constitution. At that time, he never filed any suit restraining these defendants from amending the Constitution. After the amendment of the Constitution, the defendants held election in November and December, 1992.

Plaintiffs contention is that all the documents prepared by the defendants showing that elections were held in November and December 1992, are forged and fabricated documents. This plea cannot be appreciated in the absence of evidence. These are disputed questions of facts and can be decided only after the parties adduce their evidence. Simply on the basis of earlier two civil suits, filed by two officials of the school against the managing committee, wherein none of the parties averred that Shri Rishi Lal Goel is no more President of the managing committee, it cannot be deduced that the process of the election adopted by the defendants is illegal and the documents prepared by them are false and fabricated ones. In those suits, plaintiff Rishi Lal Goel was a party whereas defendant No. 1-respondent was not a party. Thus, pleadings of that suit can have no bearing on the decision of the injunction petition in this case. If during trial, those pleadings are produced, and are confronted to certain witnesses, then only their evidentiary value can be adjudged and determined. It appears that because of personal vendetta, plaintiff is persistently making a prayer for the issuance of ad interim injunction. Now after fresh election held under the order of the learned Additional District Judge, plaintiff could have no grouse.

In my considered view, the Courts below have not fallen into any error in declining the prayer for the issuance of ad interim injunction.

Lastly, it is noteworthy that when both the Courts below have exercised their discretion properly and judiciously after considering all the relevant points whether plaintiffs have prima facie case, whether balance of convenience tilts in their favour and in case injunction is not granted whether plaintiffs will s-uffer irreparable injury, there is hardly any reason for this Court to interfere in those orders. The findings recorded by the courts below are neither infirm nor illegal nor they have caused any irreparable injury to the plaintiff.

Consequently, finding no merit in this revision, it is hereby dismissed with cost which is quantified at Rs. 500/-.

Any observation made here-in-above would not affect the merits of the case.