Civil Revision No.2600 of 2008 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Civil Revision No.2600 of 2008 Date of decision: 21.11.2008 **** Jasbir Singh and another …. Petitioners Vs. Guru Nanak Public School Trust and others …. Respondents **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH **** Present: Mr.O.P. Goyal, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Hari Pal Verma, Advocate and Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Sumit Mahajan,Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate, Mr.K.S. Bhangu, Advocate and Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for the caveator-respondent No.1. **** JASWANT SINGH.J The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the orders dated 29.2.2008 (Annexure P-19) and 6.12.2007 (Annexure P-15), passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana vide which (i) applications filed by the petitioners (Jasbir Singh and Surinder Singh sons of Jagat Singh) as well as defendant No.3-Kulwant Kaur Virdi, under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code (in short “CPC”) for rejection of plaint has been dismissed; (ii) application filed by Avtar Singh Hunjan under Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC Civil Revision No.2600 of 2008 - 2 - for substitution/to pursue the suit on behalf of the plaintiff-Trust has been allowed; (iii) application filed by present respondents No. 2 and 3 (Prem Singh and Ravinder Singh Sokhi) under Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC for substitution as defendants has been allowed; (iv) alternative prayer made in the application for rejection of plaint filed by the present petitioners (Jasbir Singh and Surinder Singh sons of Jagat Singh) for substitution in place of S.Jagat Singh and Giani Bhagat Singh as defendants has been allowed to the extent of impleadment of present petitioners as defendants, without ordering impleadment of Sh. Rajwinderjit Singh Gill as defendant in place of Kulwant Kaur Virdi. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the matter in controversy are that present respondent No.1 – Plaintiff –Guru Nanak Public School Trust, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as “the Trust”) filed Civil Suit dated 21.2.2000 through Sh. Ranjit Singh Bhail in the court of learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Ludhiana for rendition of accounts and permanent injunction restraining defendants No.1 and 2-S.Jagat Singh and Giani Bhagat Singh from posing themselves as Secretary and Member of Local Managing Committee of the School being run by the Trust and further restraining defendant No.3- Mrs. Kulwant Kaur Virdi from posing and working as Principal of Guru Nanak Public School”, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as “School”) by alleging that Ranjit Singh Bhail, Non Resident Indians (NRI) created a trust on 20.12.1969 for higher and quality education to the Punjabies settled in country and abroad on the basis of philosophy of guru and his teachings. In the Trust apart from himself being the settler, Sh. Ranjit Singh Bhail nominated 11 other persons as trustees. The Trust was registered on 25.2.1970 against Wasika No.462 Civil Revision No.2600 of 2008 - 3 - with Sub-Registrar, Ludhiana. It is further alleged that a sum of Rs.1,35,628.50 ps,. was deposited on 8.9.1970 and thereafter a sum of Rs.2,70,256.50 ps, alongwith further interest was deposited and a sale deed dated 13.6.1973 for the land measuring 30.28.22 sq.yards situated at Kartar Singh Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana was executed in favour of the Trust by Improvement Trust, Ludhiana. School is being run on that very land. It is further alleged that Sh. Ranjit Singh Bhail had contributed lot of money from his own pocket as he was fully devoted towards the aims and objectives of the Trust. Later on due to death of some trustees, constitution of the Trust was amended and re-registered on 7.6.1973 against Wasika No.2096 with Sub-Registrar, Ludhiana but the basic body of the Trust remained the same. Once again Trust was re-registered due to some changes on 25.10.1983 against Wasika No.8921 with Sub Registrar, Ludhiana. It is further alleged in the Civil Suit that for effective running of the institution / School founded by the Trust, a managing committee was formed in which Jagat Singh- defendant No.1 was nominated one of the members. Sh. Ranjit Singh Bhail was Secretary of the Trust. On 25.10.1983, managing committee was re- constituted and Jagat Singh became Secretary of the managing committee for a term of 5 years. It is further alleged that Jagat Singh – defendant No.1 alongwith Giani Bhagat Singh – defendant No.2 and in collusion with Mrs.Kulwant Kaur Virdi – defendant No.3 took complete control of the management of the school ignoring the other members of the committee. Sh.Ranjit Singh Bhail, who was the Secretary of the Trust remained abroad being a NRI and presumed that the affairs of the Trust are being run in a proper way by the Managing Committee. But to deceive the Trust, Jagat Singh – defendant No.1 in collusion with other defendants, got the committee Civil Revision No.2600 of 2008 - 4 - registered with the Registrar of Societies, Punjab with a motive to defy/cheat the Trust. Keeping in view the facts discussed above, it was resolved on 22.11.1999 that Sh.Ranjit Singh Bhail, General Secretary of the Trust should take over the charge of the school and scrutinizes the accounts of the Trust. It was also decided to appoint Mr.Rajinderjeet Singh Gill, Vice Principal as acting Principal in place of defendant No.3. The resolution of the Trust was sent to the Punjab and Sindh Bank also vide letter dated 3.12.1999 to replace the signatories. It is alleged that defendant No.1 and 2 in defiance of resolution of the Trust are proclaiming to be members of the managing committee and showing the authority of the Trust, both being influential persons and not allowing the secretary of the plaintiff-Trust, to take control of the record and the premises of the school. Defendant No.3 was duly informed vide letter dated 1.2.2000 regarding termination of her services, but despite that she has not vacated the office of the Principal. It is further alleged that defendants are admitting new students in the school and collecting huge donation in cash and usurping the amount for their personal use and have started collecting fee, donation, funds on behalf of the plaintiff- Trust and in this way the academic structure of the school is going to have a serious impact due to illegal activities of the defendants. In these circumstances, civil suit was filed. Thereafter an application dated 28.2.2000 (Annexure P-2) under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint was filed by the defendants. Written statement to the Civil Suit was filed by the defendants claiming themselves to be the ‘managing committee’. When the suit was pending, unfortunately Sh. Ranjit Singh Bhail died on 5.10.2000. Giani Bhagat Singh – defendant No.2 died on 11.8.2003. However, it is alleged by the present Civil Revision No.2600 of 2008 - 5 - petitioners that after the death of Giani Bhagat Singh-defendant No.2, Sh.Jagat Singh-defendant No.1 was appointed as President and Sh.Jasbir Singh son of Jagat Singh was appointed as Secretary in place of Jagat Singh by the managing committee vide resolution dated 22.8.2003. Thereafter, Jagat Singh-defendant No.1 also expired on 12.3.2004 and it is further alleged by the present petitioners that vide resolution dated 15.3.2004 Jasbir Singh son of Jagat Singh was appointed as President of the managing committee and Mrs. Kulwant Kaur Virdi superannuated on 10.1.2002 and in her place vide resolution dated 15.3.2004 Sh.Rajenderjit Singh Gill was appointed as Principal of the school by the managing committee. Thereafter defendant No.3-Kulwant Kaur Virdi filed an application dated 7.12.2004 (Annexure P-3) under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that plaintiff as well as defendant No.1 and 2 in the original suit have died. Reply to the application dated 7.12.2004 (Annexure P-3) was filed by plaintiff on 14.2.2005 (Annexure P- 3/A) and it was specifically submitted that new defendants stand substituted in place of Giani Bhagat Singh and Jagat Singh. Thereafter an application dated 3rd of January, 2005 (Annexure P-4) was filed by the present petitioners-Jasbir Singh and Surinder Singh for dismissal of the suit/rejection of the plaint or in the alternative to substitute their name in place of Jagat Singh and Giani Bhagat Singh as defendants No.1 and 2 as under: - (i) Surinder Singh Secretary (ii) Jasbir Singh President Civil Revision No.2600 of 2008 - 6 - And in place of Kulwant Kaur Virdi, name of Rajinderjit Singh Gill may be replaced as Principal, as she has already retired on 10.1.2002. It appears that one Prem Singh and Harminder Singh claiming themselves to be President and Secretary respectively also moved an application dated 16.11.2004 (Annexure P-5) under order 22 Rule 10 CPC for substitution of their name in place of Giani Bhagat Singh – defendant No.2 and Jagat Singh – defendant No.1 respectively. The said application was sought to be withdrawn by way of subsequent application dated 5.10.2005 (Annexure P-6). Thereafter reply dated 22.2.2005/22.5.2005 (Annexure P-7) was filed by plaintiff-respondent No.1 to the application dated 3.1.2005 (Annexure P-4) filed by petitioners and it was specifically submitted that in the meeting of the Trust held on 8.7.2004 Sh. Avtar Singh Hunjan was appointed as trustee and was authorized to represent the Trust in the pending court cases and he appeared in this case also and filed power of attorney. It was further submitted that list of members was filed in the court and as per that list the names of Jasbir Singh and Surinder Singh, present petitioners were not there. It was further submitted that ‘Guru Nanak Public School Trust’ is the plaintiff and the Trust is being represented through Avtar Singh Hunjan, trustee and there is no confusion. It was further submitted that so far as defendants are concerned, there are now two sets of persons who are now claiming substitution as office bearers of the alleged Society registered with the Registrar of the Societies, Punjab. Similarly another reply dated nil was filed by one Prem Singh and Surinder Singh Sokhi claiming themselves to be President and Secretary of the managing committee and that is appended as Annexure P-8 and they submitted that the suit was filed by Sh.Guru Nanak Civil Revision No.2600 of 2008 - 7 - Public School Trust through Sh.Ranjit Singh Bhail and although Sh.Bhail has died but the Trust which is a party to the suit stood as never died and Avatar Singh Hunjan who is a trustee is pursuing the case. Thereafter another application dated nil under Order 22 Rule 10 of the CPC was filed by present respondent No.3 – Ravinder Singh Sokhi (Annexure P-9) for substitution/impleading S.Prem Singh and S.Ravinder Singh Sokhi as defendants No.1 and 2 as both of them have been elected as President and Secretary respectively, in the meeting of the Society held on 19.10.2005. Reply to the above application dated nil was filed on 3.12.2005 (Annexure P-10) by the present petitioners – Jasbir Singh and Surinder Singh and controverted the contents of the application. They have further submitted that managing committee is being managed and controlled by Sh.Jasbir Singh as President and Surinder Singh as Secretary alongwith other office bearers and it was further submitted that neither Prem Singh nor Ravinder Singh Sokhi or Harmohinder Singh are the members of the committee and therefore, Prem Singh and Ravinder Singh Sokhi are not entitled to be impleaded as defendants No.1 and 2. Thereafter another application dated 10.5.2006 was filed (Annexure P-11) under Order 22 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC by the plaintiff with a prayer that Avtar Singh Hunjan may be allowed to continue with the suit and pursue the same on behalf of the plaintiff-Trust on the ground that Sh.Ranjit Singh Bhail has since died and vide resolution dated 8.7.2004 of the Trust he has been authorized to represent the court cases on behalf of the Trust. Reply to the above said application was filed by the present petitioners – Jasbir Singh and Surinder Singh on 16.5.2006 (Annexure P-12) and denied the averments made in the application and inter- Civil Revision No.2600 of 2008 - 8 - alia submitted in Preliminary Objection No.2 that Ranjit Singh Bhail had died in the year 2000 and the present application is filed on 10.5.2006, therefore, the same is hopelessly time barred and should be dismissed as every application has to be brought within a period of three years. In para 3 of the Preliminary Objections it was submitted that Avtar Singh Hunjan is neither the trustee nor he has any right on behalf of the plaintiff to come on record, neither any copy of the alleged resolution dated 8.7.2004 has been placed on record. Thereafter another application dated 30.5.2006 (Annexure P-13) was filed by the petitioner(s) with a prayer to jointly decide all the pending applications before the learned trial court. Reply to the above said application dated 30.5.2006 was filed by the plaintiff – respondent No.1 (Annexure P-14) and it was specifically submitted in reply to para no.1 that Avtar Singh Hunjan is the President and Surinder Singh Sokhi is the Secretary and it was further submitted that two applications are pending and it is yet to be decided by the learned trial court as to who is actual and factual successor of Jagat Singh and Bhagat Singh – Secretary and President of the local managing committee of the school. Vide order dated 6.12.2007 (Annexure P-15) learned trial court allowed the alternative prayer made by the present petitioners in their application dated 3.1.2005 (Annexure P-4) to the extent that Jasbir Singh and Surinder Singh were ordered to be substituted in place of defendant No.1 and further allowed application dated nil (Annexure P-9) for impleadment/substitution of Prem Singh and Ravinder Singh Sokhi in place of defendants No.1 and 2. Operative part of the order is reproduced here as under: Civil Revision No.2600 of 2008 - 9 - “Learned counsel for the plaintiff has moved an application that he has no objection if name of Jasbir Singh, Surinder Singh, both sons of Jagat Singh are substituted in place of defendant No.1 and they are made to contest the present suit. He has no objection if in place of defendants No.1 and 2 Ravinder Singh Sokhi and Prem Singh are allowed to contest the suit. In view of the no objection of the counsel for the plaintiff, the names of these persons are substituted on record. Let amended plaint, impleading their names be filed for 11.12.2007 and consideration be also heard on the application.” The net affect, after the passing of the order is that in place of original three defendants namely Jagat Singh (who died on 12.3.2004), Bhagat Singh (who died on 11.8.2003) and Kulwant Kaur Virdi (who superannuated on 10.1.2002), now four persons namely Jasbir Singh, Surinder Singh sons of Jagat Singh; and Prem Singh and Ravinder Singh Sokhi were ordered to be substituted as defendants in the aforesaid suit. Thereafter another application dated 19.1.2008 (Annexure P-16) under section 151 of CPC for review of the order dated 6.12.2007 (Annexure P-15) was filed by the present petitioners – Jasbir Singh and Surinder Singh. The plaintiff filed their reply dated 9.2.2008 (Annexure P-16/A) to the above mentioned application dated 19.1.2008 (Annexure P-16) and it was specifically mentioned in reply to para 2 of the application that the counsel of the plaintiff suffered a statement that he has no objection for impleading Jasbir Singh and Surinder Singh both sons of Jagat Singh in place of defendants No.1 and he has no objection if Ravinder Singh Sokhi and Prem Civil Revision No.2600 of 2008 - 10 - Singh are allowed to contest the present suit. Names of the persons have been substituted in the present suit and the amended plaint has already been filed. Thereafter vide impugned order dated 29.2.2008 (annexure P- 19) learned trial court has disposed of the application dated 7.12.2004 (annexure P-3) filed by Kulwant Kaur Virdi – original defendant No.3 and application dated 3.1.2005 (Annexure P-4) filed by petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection of plaint; application dated nil (Annexure P-9) filed by respondents herein No.2 and 3 and application dated 10.5.2006 (Annexure P- 11) filed by Avtar Singh Hunjan under Order 22 Rule 10 for substitution; and has held that Guru Nanak Public School Trust is a registered Trust and juristic person in the eyes of law and suit filed by it cannot abate and application under Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC to pursue the suit on behalf of the plaintiff has been allowed and further the application of defendants for dismissal of the suit ahs been dismissed. It has further been ordered that there is no limitation for making an application for bringing on record LR under Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC as amended by Punjab and Haryana High Court and application under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint filed by the petitioners/defendants is also dismissed and operative part of the order is reproduced below: “Para 13: After going through the submissions advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties, if the documents on the record are seen there is a Trust Deed dated 25.2.1970 produced by the plaintiff on the record which is registered vide Wasika No.462 vahi No.4, Zild No.13 Pana No.281 on 25.2.1970. Learned counsel Civil Revision No.2600 of 2008 - 11 - for the plaintiff has further produced on record another Trust Deed bearing Wasika No.462 Vahi No.4, Zild No.13 Pana No.281 wherein the rules and regulations are observed by the trustees are recorded. This Trust Deed is also registered Trust Deed. There is another copy of trust deed of Guru Nanak Public School Trust which has also been registered on 7.6.1973 wherein also rules and regulations of the trust are there. Another copy of the trust i.e. Guru Nanak Public School Trust have been put by the plaintiff on the record which is dated 25.10.1983 regarding rules and regulations, Trust working of the trustees on the record. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has also put on record the sale deed in favour of the Guru Nanak Public School which is registered on 7.6.1973. As such the learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that since the Trust is registered Trust it is juristic person. A simple suit for injunction on the death of the defendant or the plaintiff the suit can not abate. The plaintiff has further filed the suit for rendition of accounts and the same can be maintained in view of the fact that Guru Nanak Public School is registered Trust and juristic person in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the defendant denies this fact. However the fact remains that Guru Nanak Public School Trust is registered person and juristic person in the yes of law. The suit filed by it cannot abate. As such the application under Order 22 Civil Revision No.2600 of 2008 - 12 - Rule 10 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC cannot be dismissed and the same is also allowed. As such the application of the answering defendants for dismissal of the suit as Ranjit Singh Bhail has expired is also not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed. In view of the fact that the present Trust is a registered Trust in the eyes of law. In view of the authority Kali Ram vs. Mangat Ram 2001 (2) Civil Court Cases 241 (P&H) 2001(2) Civil Court Cases 241 (P&H) cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that there is no limitation for making an application for impleading LRs after amendment in Order XXII Rule 3 of Punjab and Haryana High Court - The lis of the parties should not fail on the technicalities and procedural wrangles. The objection of the defendant that the application of the plaintiff for bringing legal heir is also time barred is not maintainable. Since the suit filed by Trust for rendition of account. I am of the view that the application for rejection of the plaint filed by the defendant cannot also succeed and the same is hereby dismissed.” Hence the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners challenging the orders dated 6.12.2007 (Annexure P15) and order dated 29.2.2008 (Annexure P19) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. Civil Revision No.2600 of 2008 - 13 - Counsel for the respondent No.1-Trust-plaintiff at the very outset states that he has no objection if Sh. Rajinderjit Singh Gill is substituted/impleaded as the fifth defendant in place of Mrs. Kulwant Kaur Virdhi. In the present case two issues/points are involved for adjudication: i) Whether keeping in view the provisions of order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, the plaint (Annexure P-1) is liable to be rejected or not; ii) Whether substitution / impleadment of the respondents No.2 & 3 as defendants and Mr.Avtar Singh Hunjan, trustee to maintain the suit on behalf of plaintiff- respondent No.1 is justified or not? 1. That so far as point No.1 is concerned, it is necessary to reproduce the Order 7 Rule 11 [ relevant clauses (a) to (d)] of the CPC which read as under: “11. Rejection of plaint – The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: - (a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) Where the relief claimed is under-valued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to so correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so; (c) Where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so; Civil Revision No.2600 of 2008 - 14 - (d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by the law.” So far as legal position regarding deciding an application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 is concerned, it is well settled that only averments made in the plaint are to be looked into and the pleas taken by the defendants in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant and reference is made in this regard to Hon’ble Supreme Court decision rendered in “ Popat and Kotecha Property versus State Bank of India Staff Association” 2005(7) S.C.C. 510 and relevant paras 14 to 20 are as under: “14. In Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra it was held with reference to Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power at any stage of the suit – before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, the averments in the plaint are the germane; the please taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage. 15. In I.T.C. Ltd v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal it was held that the basis question to be decide while dealing with an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is whether a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated with a view to get out of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. Civil Revision No.2600 of 2008 - 15 - 16 The trial court must remember that if on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise the power under Order 7 Rule