R.S.A.No. 2587 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2587 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.5.2011 Loveleen Kumar ......Appellant Versus B.M.Talwar .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sumit Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration challenging the election of Geeta Mandir Sabha, Sector 11, Panchkula . The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the Gita Mandir Sabha was registered with the Registrar of Firms and Societies, Haryana at Chandigarh on 27.8.1982. As per Clause 3 of the Constitution of the Sabha, any person would become a member of the Sabha by paying the requisite fee. The members were then to elect the office bearers of the Sabha. The plaintiff was surprised to know from the newspapers that the defendant had been made the president of the Sabha without any notice as required to be issued R.S.A.No. 2587 of 2010 (O&M) 2 under Clause 4 (b) (1 ) (2) of the Constitution of the Sabha. It was prayed that the defendant and other office bearers, nominated by the defendant, be restrained from functioning as office bearers of the Sabha. Defendant, in his written statement, averred that the office bearers of the managing committee had been elected by the members of the General Sabha. The elections were held in accordance with the Constitution of the Sabha. The other contentions in the plaint were denied. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the election of defendant No.1 and other office bearer nominated by defendant No.1 is illegal, null and void? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 3. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 4.Relief.” The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 1.6.2006. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 21.9.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and R.S.A.No. 2587 of 2010 (O&M) 3 deserves dismissal. Learned first Appellate Court held that since the term of the Sabha had already expired and the office bearers of the managing committee had not been arrayed as a party to the suit, the suit was not maintainable. The said finding of the learned first Appellate Court calls for no interference by this Court in appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 25, 2011 anita