Jiva Ram Goyal v. Ramesh Kumar Bansal And Others



 
        

  

 

!"#"

$%  &'' "( )  *+ ''''

"

"

$ , - ,#.# ) #/ 0.), $#+ $

/ ,# ''''' #1 $ $ #
2 %  34 2' 5

 - 05  





 





  


- 05  47 ' 4 







 






!

"





#

# $
% &
 '(

)


*"
%+
,( 
- )

 

)

.
/


0
1!!
2



3 





 4
5





 4


 


)
4






+
 



 






)
 

)

 


-

4

"








"
 





! 

 4








)


 









7
!

"

 

4"



#

# $

- 

 


)



0

2




 

" 

4

"













#

# $
-
-

 


 









"

 


/






 "



"
4)
3 


 

 4


/

.9




4

  
 


)

4
3 



4

!



 



"
)



 

)




+





 





 


"

+


 


4





:
1
)



4



- 

 

-

"A) SUIT FOR DECLARATION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ELECTION OF DEFENDANT NO.2 FOR THE POST OF PRESIDENT ALLEGEDLY CONDUCTED AND DECLARED ORALLY WITHOUT OFFICIAL DECALRATION BY DEFENDANT NO.3 AND 4 IS ILLEGAL, NULL, VOID, ULTRAVIROUS, RESULT OF VARIOUS IRREGULARITIES MALPRACTICE, CORRUPT PRACTICE, ARBITRARY, AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL OF DEMOCRATIC VALUES, THAT TOO WITHOUT DECIDING THE OBJECTIONS AND REPRESENTATION SENT TO DEFENDANTS WHICH IS UNLAWFULLY DECLARED ON 04 2024 WITHOUT CONDUCTING ELECTIONS BY DEFENDANT NO.3 AND 4 WHICH ARE TO BE CONDUCTED, HELD ON 15 THUS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDED, QUASHED AND THE FRESH ELECTIONS FOR THE POST OF PRESIDENT MAY

8 KINDLY CONSEQUENTLY ORDERED TO BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWFUL DEMOCRATIC VALUES PREVAILING IN INDIA WITH FAIRNESS, FREELY, TRANSPARENCY, WITHOUT BIAS WITHOUT ANY UNDUE INFLUENCE BY ACTUALLY CASTING OF VOTE BY WAY OF SECRET BALLOT;

AND B) SUIT FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION FOR ISSUANCE OF MANDATE/DIRECTION/ORDERS TO THE DEFENDANT NOS.1 TRUST TO HOLD THE FREE, FAIR, IMPARTIAL, WITHOUT BIAS, WITHOUT INFLUENCE, FRESH ELECTION OF ENTIRE MANAGING COMMITTEE CONSISTING OF PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT, SECRETARY, JOINT SECRETARY, CASHIER AND 4 EXECUTIVE MEMBERS BY ISSUING NEW SCHEDULE FOR FRESH ELECTIONS AS PER CLAUSE NO.11 OF THE MEMORANDUM OF TRUST MANDIR SHRI RAM CHANDRA JI REGISTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PREVAILING DEMOCRATIC VALUES, AS PER THE CONSTITUTION OF DEFENDANT NO.1 TRUST AS WELL AS DEMOCRATIC SET UP OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BY REMOVING BOTH DEFENDANT NO.

9 FAIRNESS OF ELECTION BY LIGIBILE VOTERS, ELECTION BY ISSUING THE LIST OF VALID MEMBERS/VOTERS, AND ITS PRODUCTION BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT AND ITS PERUSAL MAY BE ORDER TO BE OPENED SCRUTINIZED AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THIS HON'BLE COURT THAT TOO SUBJECT TO DECISION OF THE PRESENT SUIT;

AND C) SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE DEFENDANTS NO.2 FROM RESUMING THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF DEFENDANT NO.1 TRUST ON THE BASIS OF ALLEGED ORAL SUO MOTTO DECLARATION OF ELECTED PRESIDENT OF DEFENDANT NO.1 TRUST, SUO MOTO ALLEGEDLY DECLARED BY DEFENDANT NO.3 AND 4 ÓRALLY AS A BACK DOOR ENTRY BY CONGRATULATING DEFENDANT NO.2 GARLANDING HIM, DISTRIBUTION OF SWEETS ON THE ALLEGED EVE OF MAKING IT PUBLIC ON SOCIAL MEDIA BY WAY OF WHATS APP, PHOTO GRAPHS, FACE BOOK AND IN NEWSPAPER, UNLAWFULLY, ILLEGALLY, IN VIOLATION OF DEMOCRATIC VALUES, UNILATERELY, ARBITRARILY BY ADOPTING PROCEDURE UN KNOWN TO LAW WITHOUT HOLDING ANY ELECTION WHICH ARE TO BE CONDUCTED, HOLDED AND DECLARED ON 15 AS PER THE ELECTION PROCESS ISSUED BY DEFENDANT NO.3 AND 4 ON WHATS APP IN ACCORDANCE CONSTITUTION OF DEFENDANT NO.1.

AND D).

SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION FURTHER RESTRAINING THE DEFENDANT NO.1 AND 2 FROM OPERATING BY/AND WITHDRAWING ANY AMOUNT OUT OF THE ACCOUNT NO.5856000100001615 AND NO.65048406311 OF DEFENDANT NO.1 TRUST MAINTAINED WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK BRANCH ZILA PARISHAD BATHINDA, STATE BANK OF INDIA

 BRANCH (KATIA SARASWATI PLAZA) AMRIK SINGH ROAD BATHINDA AND ENCASHING ANY FDR WHICH ARE STANDING IN THE NAME OF DEFENDANT NO.1 TRUST AND FURTHER RESTRAINING THE DEFENDANT NO.1 AND 2 FROM OPENING ANY FRESH/NEW BANK ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF DEFENDANT NO.1 ON THE BASIS OF ALLEGED HOLDING OF OFFICE OF PRESIDENT ALLEGEDLY DECLARED BY DEFENDANT NO.3 AND WITHOUT ELECTION WHICH ARE YET TO BE CONDUCTED ON 15 2024;

AND E) FURTHER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE DEFENDANT NO.1 AND 2 FROM TRANSFERRING ANY OF THE MOVABLE, IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES OF DEFENDANT NO.1 TRUST BY WAY OF SALE, MORTGAGE, EXCHANGE, GIFT, LEASE, LICENSE, GRANT, DONATION, COLLUSIVE DECREE ETC. ETC.ANYWISE/IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF TWO

THIRD MAJORITY OF GENERAL HOUSE THAT TOO IN WRITING FOR THE GENIUNE, TRUTHFUL, LEGAL, NECESSITY NEED OF DEFENDANT NO.1 TRUST AND FURTHER RESTRAINING THEM FROM CREATING ANY CHARGE, LIEN, ENCUMBRANCE OVER THE SAID MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ON THE BASIS OF ALLEGEDLY HOLDING OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF DEFENDANT NO.1 TRUST ILLEGALLY, FORCIBLY, IN ANY MANNER AND ANYWISE BEING DEFENDANT NO.1 AND 2 HAVE NO AUTHORITY, COMPETENCY AND JURISDICTION TO DO, COMMIT, PERFORM ANY SUCH ACT THING, DEED ETC. ETC;

AND F) SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE DEFENDANT NO.1 AND 2 FROM SPENDING ANY AMOUNT OR SUM OUT OF FUNDS, SAVINGS AND DONATIONS OF DEFENDANT NO.1 TRUST FOR ANY

: OTHER PURPOSES EXCEPT THE AIMS AND OBJECT OF THE TRUST SET FORTH IN ITS CONSTITUTION AT CLAUSE 4 (a) TO (f). ILLEGALLY, FORCIBLY, ARBITRARILY, UNILATERALLY, ANYWISE IN ANY MANNER IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE DEFENDANT NO.1 TRUST XXX XXX XXX"

$

+ % (




 




 

  

(1) In the case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, or where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust, the Advocate

General, or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the [leave of the Court], may institute a suit, whether contentious or not, in the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or in any other Court empowered in that behalf by the State Government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject matter of the trust is situate to obtain a decree:

(a) removing any trustee;

(b) appointing a new trustee;

(c) vesting any property in a trustee;

[(cc) directing a trustee who has been removed or a person who has ceased to be a trustee, to deliver possession of any trust property in his possession to the person entitled to the possession of such property]; (d) directing accounts and inquiries;

(e) declaring what proportion of the trust property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust;

(f) authorizing the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged;

(g) settling a scheme; or

& (h) granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require."

'

5





 4

 )
%,(
-
 

4
3 

"
 
/



4
"
).
--"
)
4 





/ ';'<### #### < ' 
/ <'#$;$#<8

 
/

.9
-




%(

+

% (




5







 
 -



)



)





 + % (




<

!


4


-

-
"
  

0

2



3 




 




"




"


 4





"
)







-



3 



:
4







3 
!

"

-






3"4
 
=> 
+4





?          

  

 

 !"#$ ""

%% &#! 9
 



3"4

 
 - ?2. An application dated 8 2016 was filed by the Defendant(s) under Order VII Rule 11 stating that the plaint disclosed no cause of action. '(   ) * *)   &++ !",



 

 

  

      -

 +     

 -

 

*    .    .-     /       

 

*    .-  "+

 %)

( It has further been held that the defendant, in any case, is barred from filing a written statement in the suit as he has taken inordinate time to do so.

3. In our view, the impugned judgment is wrong on principle."

xxx xxx xxx 8.

We are afraid that this is a misreading of the Madras High Court judgment. It was only on the peculiar facts of that case that want of Section 80 CPC against one defendant led to the rejection of the plaint as a whole, as no cause of action would remain against the other defendants. This cannot elevate itself into a rule of law, that once a part of a plaint cannot proceed, the other part also cannot proceed, and the plaint as a whole must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11. 0

 



-  

   

* 

  - 

1

  

2 00 3 ""

4 

 



 





    



 )  

    

xxx xxx xxx
10.

In contrast to the above provisions, which apply on a demurrer, the provisions of Order XIV Rule 2, read as follows: ?2. Court to pronounce judgment on all issues. (1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues.

(2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to

(a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue."

; The Court is vested with a discretion under this order to deal with an issue of law, which it may try as a preliminary issue if it relates to the jurisdiction of the Court, or is a bar to the suit created for the time being in force. Obviously, this provision would apply after issues are struck i.e. after a written statement is filed. This provision again cannot come to the rescue of learned counsel for the respondent.

11. 5   *  



4 

    ) * *)

 *    -      

  -  *  46 -)  ( 4  

 -     4   )

-

    4 

     
9
-"

3"4




       $

=> 
+4


 

    7** 4 



   78  '

6 



 

 

 !"$ & %% "9#



  ?10. We do not deem it necessary to elaborate on all other arguments  4

    

       -  

  $ 

    - -    -

   8  -

4  2 & 3 "" $ %%

 

 (     -  -   -  $ 0   4

 

 

    



  





 8  -

4  2 & 3 "" $ %% Indeed, the learned Single Judge rejected this objection raised by the appellant(s) by relying on the decision of the Division Bench of the same High Court. :4

4 -  

      -   %          (   

  0 









   -  (   -  $  2 & 3 "" $ %%   * 

  

     

 -

  

 



 

  

      -



       

(

 -

 

*    .  ; .-  $   /    2 

      : *

%



 

    



 

*  .- 

)

(

  < 

  (   %    

 

   

 

  8  -



4  2 & 3 "" $ %%  %

4     <     *   (

 *         

 



 (

 

  

 

      



  



  %

 

   

)     

  <

(

  

  -

    *

*  ) -   -  $



     )

*      0     )   %



 

 -  

   

* 

  -  $

1

   2 & 3 "" $ %% 4 

 



 





    



 )  

    

xxx xxx xxx 14.

A fortiori, these appeals must succeed on the sole ground that the principal relief claimed in the notice of motion filed by Respondent 1 to reject the plaint only qua the said respondent and which commended to the High Court, is replete with jurisdictional error. 

 - =

   =  8  -

4  2 & 3 "" $ %%



4   )      -  

 



  




;

!




-



4

) 
/










 


 

3 













)
"4


 
 
).
"





)
%,(

 



+ % (


9

4"
 )
%,(

4
3 

""
)


 



-



%(

+ % (

  "


 



  






- 
-


 
3"4




-

 3 
 

4
-

:

4"



 3 




0

2




4 
!
 


4


+ % (%(

 

  - 

"


 "




:



 prima facie

)

4
3 
"

 /



4
"

--"
)
4
4



 -

4
-

4"

? "




:@

9




")
4

 

0
2



3 




"

-

  
 

 4 
 






4"





)  



")

4





 
"
4



4




") 4

 - 05  4   <,.,* &7   naresh.k A
.7"B C A
 B C