1 SB Civil Writ Petition No.7683/2007 Pukhraj Chauhan. vs. Karan Singh Chauhan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7683/2007 Pukhraj Chauhan. vs. Karan Singh Chauhan and others. Date : 30.3.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.MR Singhvi, for the petitioner. Mr.MK Trivedi, for the respondents. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction as back as on 27.1.87 stating therein that no lawful meeting was convened on 9.10.86 and the defendant be restrained from proceeding with election under registration no.32 for holding the election of the community in the amended name. The defendant submitted an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as back as on 21.4.88 praying that the relief cannot be granted to the plaintiffs because of the reason that after said date, the elections have already been conducted and the elected members' term has also expired, 2 SB Civil Writ Petition No.7683/2007 Pukhraj Chauhan. vs. Karan Singh Chauhan & Ors. therefore, no cause of action survives. That application was got dismissed by the defendant by stating that the defendant will take plea in the written statement. The trial court permitted defendants to take the plea in the written statement. The written statement was filed and the plaintiffs' evidence has been completed. Thereafter, one application under Section 151 CPC was filed stating therein that in the subsequent election held on 17.11.2004, one Ashok Singh was elected as President and defendant Pukhraj is no more President of the community and, therefore, the cause of action has come to an end and the suit has become infructuous. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the plaintiffs/respondents' prayer for not holding the meeting at a particular place was accepted by the trial court and interim injunction order was passed. Since this was only against holding of meeting at a particular place, therefore, obeying the order of the interim injunction, the meeting was convened on 9.10.1986 at different place and thereafter, several 3 SB Civil Writ Petition No.7683/2007 Pukhraj Chauhan. vs. Karan Singh Chauhan & Ors. elections took place within a period of last more than 20 years. Therefore, the relief claimed by the plaintiff cannot be granted and the suit has become infructuous. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Machado Brothers and others reported in 2004 AIR SCW 1842 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if subsequent events make the suit infructuous, then the Court can under Section 151 CPC dismiss the suit after making the enquiries about the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that once the defendant took the plea that they will take the plea in the written statement, then the plea taken in the written statement can be looked into only after framing of the issues and if law permits, then as preliminary issue can be decided before proceeding for trial on other issues. But in the present case, the evidence of the plaintiffs has already been completed and the case has been fixed for defendant's evidence, the 4 SB Civil Writ Petition No.7683/2007 Pukhraj Chauhan. vs. Karan Singh Chauhan & Ors. trial court has not committed any illegality by not rejecting the plaint of the plaintiffs at this stage. On merits also, it has been submitted that the plaintiffs have claimed that no legal general body meeting was held on 9.10.1986 and, therefore, all subsequent acts and actions are illegal including the action taken under the registration no.32. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the facts of the case. It appears from the facts of the case that the first plea was taken for dismissal of the suit on the ground that it has become infructuous and that has not been pressed. The defendants themselves intended to take the plea in the written statement and it appears from the issues framed by the trial court that no issue for rejection of the plaint on account of suit becoming infructuous, has been framed on any plea of the defendant. Be it as it may be, the trial has proceeded and a period of 22 years has been consumed. The case is fixed for the defendant's evidence, therefore, I do not find any 5 SB Civil Writ Petition No.7683/2007 Pukhraj Chauhan. vs. Karan Singh Chauhan & Ors. reason to interfere in the impugned order. In view of the above, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. The record be sent back to the trial court with a request to decide the suit expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date fixed by the trial court after receipt of the copy of this order. It is made clear that any observation made in the above order is neither a finding on question of fact or on question of law in any manner in favour of either the plaintiffs or the defendant, nor it is against, therefore, the trial court will decide the suit uninfluenced by the above order. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya