IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1773 of 2001 HULAS CHANDRA RUNGTA & ORS Versus MOTI LAL TEKRIWAL & ORS ----------- For the petitioners : Mr.Lalit Kishore, Sr.Advocate & Mr.Ajay Kr.Sharma For the O.Ps. : M/s S.K.Verma,Sr.Adv. Ashok Kr.Singh & Jitendra Kishore Verma 16. 29.9.2008 Heard Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.K.Verma, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. The impugned order as with regard to the prayer of the petitioners for being impleaded as a party to the suit has been rejected by the court below on the ground that the very plea of the petitioners that they came in the office despite there being an order of injunction, could not have been allowed. The court below in this regard has found that the presence of the petitioners is not required and they are neither necessary nor proper parties. Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Senior counsel, has produced the application filed by the three petitioners on 18.9.2000 which reads as follows: 2 ”1. That the petitioners have been elected as office bearers and as such, they are necessary party to be added as plaintiff in this suit. 2. That in the aforesaid facts and circumstances the following petitioners may be allowed to be added as the plaintiffs in the cause title of the plaint:- 1. Sri Hulash Chandra Rungta, S/o Late Mahabir Prasad Rungta “President of the plaintiff no.1 resident of At/ P.O. Naugachhia, District Bhagalpur. 2. Sri Pradeep Kumar, S/o Late Jugeshwar Prasad “Pradhanmantri of the plaintiff no.1 resident of Mahendralok, Kankarbag, Patna-20. 3. Sri Chaturbhuj Pd.Sinha, S/o Late Ram Sevak Singh, resident of Mohalla Shivpuri, P.S. Shashtrinagar, District Patna-33. 3. That the petitioners admit the facts of the plaint in the suit and being present office bearers are willing to proceed with the suit.” It is with only these averments in 3 three paragraphs of the application that the prayer was made that the petitioners be allowed to be impleaded as plaintiffs in the suit. This prayer came to be in respect of a suit which had been filed in the year 1993 with the following reliefs: “(a) The court be pleased to hold and declare that the defendant 1st party are not legally elected members and constituted body of the plaintiffs and they have got no right to function as such and he further pleased to declare that the committee of the society constituted on 3.7.1993 under the Presidentship of Dr. Nagesh Chaudhary Nagesh, is properly constituted committee of the society. (b) That a permanent injunction be issued against the defendant 1st party and each of them restraining them for conducting or managing the affairs of All India santmat satsang Mahasabha or to call meeting or transact conduct any conference operate account, publish Shanti Sandesh and or to interfere with the right and privilege of the plaintiffs. 4 © To award cost.” The two reliefs, therefore, were nowhere referable to any subsequent event and accordingly, in the year 2000 when such an application came to be filed for impleadment the court had rightly noted the plea of the petitioners with regard to their coming in office despite there being an order of injunction. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order, therefore, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. In fact it is settled by now that a person who comes before a court to assert his right on the basis of an action which is itself in violation of the court’s order, being a nullity, cannot be acted upon. Reference in this case may be made to a case of the Apex Court in the case of Skippers Construction Vs. Delhi Development Authority reported in 1996(4) S.C.C. 622. In presence of these two factors, namely, the petitioners coming out to sort out their claim despite there being an order of injunction and the relief in the suit being nowhere referable to their status 5 being affected the court below has rightly proceeded to reject the prayer of the petitioners. At this stage when this Court has dismissed this application Mr. Lalit Kishore would point out that this order should not mean that if any subsequent body has come in the office, without causing any violation of the court’s injunction order, that body also should not be allowed to be represented. Such apprehension of the learned Senior counsel is wholly without substance inasmuch as it would be always open for the court to take into account the subsequent events for the purposes of considering any application under Order 1 Rule 10(2)C.P.C. without being prejudiced by the present order. With the aforementioned observation, this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/