IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16467 of 2010 Date of Decision : September 14, 2010. Hindu Putri Pathshala Society (Regd.) .....Petitioner versus State Bank of India and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner is a registered-Society and it runs four Educational Institutions at Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur. The Managing Committee, Hindu Putri Pathshala Society (Regd), through its Secretary Sh.Jawahar Lal, filed a Civil Suit for permanent injunction in the Civil Court at Gurdaspur on 27.2.2007 (Annexure P-10), which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 1.6.2010 (Annexure P-12) whereby three defendant-banks have been restrained from allowing the operation of the bank accounts opened in the names of Hindu Putri Pathshala Girls High C.W.P.No .16467 of 2010 2 School, Dhariwal; HIndu Kanya Maha Vidyala, Dhariwal and Hindu Kanya Collegiate Senior Secondary School, Dhariwal, by any other person except the District Education Officer (Secondary), Gurdaspur. The petitioner-Society, on the other hand, asserts that it is a validly elected/constituted Managing Committee of the School duly recognized by the State Government and other authorities. The banks have now refused the petitioner-Society to operate its account contrary to the above-mentioned Civil Court decree. Aggrieved, the petitioner-Society has approached this Court. One of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner-Society was never a party to the civil suit nor it had any knowledge of its pendency. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the records. In my considered view, the petitioner-Society undoubtedly is an 'aggrieved person' against the judgment and decree dated 1.6.2010 and would be well within its right to impugn the same in appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Suffice it to say that unless the Civil Court decree is set-aside, the respondent-bank would be justified in not allowing the petitioner-Society from operating its bank account.The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner-Society to file the first appeal against the above-mentioned judgment and decree dated 1.6.2010 before the first Appellate Court, who shall decide the ad- interim stay application, if any, moved by the petitioner-Society, within a C.W.P.No .16467 of 2010 3 period of one month from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Dasti. September 14, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE