CR No. 3071 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 3071 of 2009 Date of Decision: 27.7.2009 Manjul Mishra and others ....Petitioners. Versus Ram Murti Sharma and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioners have approached this Court by way of present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to seek setting aside of the orders dated 9.12.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, whereby the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff-respondents was allowed and dated 5.5.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal, in the appeal filed thereagainst affirming that of the trial court. The lower appellate court while affirming the order of the trial court had, in paras 8 and 9 of its order recorded as under:- “8. After having heard both the sides and perusing the records carefully, it transpires that the main thrust of the arguments on behalf of both the CR No. 3071 of 2009 -2- parties is regarding the validity of resolution No. 1029, the amendment made in the Rules in Memorandum of Association in the year 1996 and the consequent inducting of Gurcharan Sharma as life member instead of Harshit Kumar on the creation of vacancy on the death of Jagmohan Sarup Sharma. It is rightly observed by the learned trial court that whether or not the rules were amended in the year 2006 as claimed by the plaintiff-respondents, is a matter to be proved by the parties by leading cogent evidence. At this stage there is a prima facie case that the rules were so amended as the copy of the same was also sent to the Registrar of Societies. The copy of the memorandum of Association duly signed by the governing body including defendant No.5 has been placed on record which is shown to be duly attested by the Registrar of Societies. As such on the face of it the said amendment permitting any legal heir of Pt. Het Ram to be elected as a life member, is valid. Therefore, to see whether said amendment is interpolated, forged or unlawful can be proved by leading evidence and the election of Gurcharan Sharma cannot be invalidated at CR No. 3071 of 2009 -3- this stage meaning thereby that if the respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs have a prima facie case to continue in the office of the Trust, in the manner in which no confidence motion was passed by them in an extra ordinary meeting is illegal because any such extra ordinary meeting could only have been called by the Secretary or the President or on the request of at least five trustees. 9. Seen from another angle, the tenure of the office of the President and Secretary is of three years and the election had taken place in July, 2006. As such the tenure of the President and Secretary will be ending in July 2009. In view of the injunction passed by the learned trial court the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are continuing to be so till date. Since the learned trial court has issued directions to hold the election of the Trust within time i.e. prior to expiry of their tenure in August 2009 the balance of convenience is clearly in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. Therefore, I do not find that the order passed by the learned trial court suffers from any illegality or the discretion has been wrongly exercised in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, finding no infirmity in the CR No. 3071 of 2009 -4- order passed by the learned trial court the same is hereby affirmed. The appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.” In view of the above, no ground to exercise jurisdiction by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. Accordingly, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. However, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court shall make sincere efforts for expeditious disposal of the suit. July 27, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE