Arya Samaj (Model Town) Model Town , Ludhiana And ORS. v. Rakesh Jain And ORS.

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH (298) Date of decision: - 27.04.2026 ARYA SAMAJ (MODEL TOWN) REGD MODEL TOWN, LUDHIANA AND ORS.

....Petitioners

Versus

RAKESH JAIN AND ORS.

.....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present:- Mr. Abhishek Sanghi, Advocate, and Mr. Sushant Kareer, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate, and Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents.

**** VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1.

Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 31.05.2023 (Annexure P-16) passed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide which the appeal against the order dated 27.05.2022 (Annexure P-12) passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana has been allowed.

2.

During the course of hearing, a very fair stand has been taken on behalf of the petitioners as well as on behalf of the respondents and on

-2the basis of the consensus arrived, the present revision petition is disposed of with the following observations/directions: - (i) The election for electing the governing body of the Arya Samaj (Model Town) Regd., Ludhiana would be held expeditiously. For the said purpose, 72 undisputed members would participate in the said election and would have a right to vote.

(ii) The respondents who at present are the governing body would issue the mandatory one month election notice within a period of 10 days from today.

(iii) The election would be held on 14.06.2026 in the premises of the Arya Samaj (Model Town), Ludhiana.

(iv) The result of the said election would be declared within three days from 14.06.2026 i.e. on or before 18.06.2026. (v) Mr. Stevon Soni, Advocate and Mr. M.C. Sehgal, Advocate, who are stated to be the Local Commissioners who had got conducted the election on the previous date, are appointed as Local Commissioners to conduct the present election also. In case the said two counsel are unavailable or for any reason are not willing to be appointed as Local Commissioners, then, it would be open to both the parties to agree to some other counsel as Local Commissioners, for which the representatives of both the parties would duly sign a joint statement.

-3- (vi) It has been agreed that both the Local Commissioners would be paid Rs.1,00,000/- each, to be shared by the petitioners and the respondents. The petitioners would pay Rs.1,00,000/- respondents would also pay Rs.1,00,000/-.

(vii) The passing of the present order would not be construed as an adjudication on the rights of the 19 members, who as per the case of the petitioners are also entitled to vote and it would be open to both the parties to raise the said issue before the trial Court in accordance with law. (viii) The suit has been pending since 2022. The evidence of the petitioners had started in May, 2022. In the said circumstances, it has been agreed that the petitioners would be given three effective opportunities to conclude their evidence and the respondents/defendants would be given five effective opportunities to conclude their evidence. (ix) The trial Court is requested to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible. Counsel appearing before the trial Court are also requested not to take unnecessary adjournments and to fully assist the Court in expeditious disposal of the matter.

( VIKAS BAHL ) April 27, 2026 JUDGE naresh.k Whether reasoned/speaking?

Yes/No Whether reportable?

Yes/No