IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2134 of 2009 Date of Order: 24.10.2009 Shakuntala Sharma ....Appellant. Versus Indraprastha Coop. Housing Society and others. .....Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. A.S.Sullar, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * SABINA,J.(Oral) Plaintiff filed suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent/mandatory injunction, which was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.),Rohtak vide judgment and decree dated 04.10.2006. In appeal, the same were up-held by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide judgment and decree dated 16.08.2009. Hence, the present appeal. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower Appellate Court in paras 2,3 and 4 of its judgment read as under:- 2. “Briefly stated the allegations of the plaintiff as set-out in her plaint are that the defendant no.1 is the Co-operative Society registered with the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana, Chandigary(for short 'the Society'). The aim and purpose of the Society is to develop housing colony and allot the same to its members. Its properties vest in its members and none is authorized to mis-appropriate the same for his own and exclusive RSA No.2134 of 2009 ..2.. use. The defendants are bound to work according to the bye-laws of the Society. She is the member of the Society having one share and her membership no. is 130. She being a member of the Society has a legal right to watch the interest thereof. Some of the sites for shops belonging to the Society are situated in its phase No.1 on Sonepat Road, Rohtak. The defendants No.2 to 4 want to mis-appropriate the assets and property of the Society. They were going to auction the commercial plots on 23.04.2001 by ignoring the legal rights of the members of the Society with malafide intention and demanded bank draft of rupee one lac on 22.04.2001 though that day i.e. 22.04.2001 was a holiday being Sunday and the banks were closed. There was no possibility of getting the bank draft prepared on that date. As such, one Kirpal Singh Hans a member of the Society filed a suit in the Court of Sh.R.K.Sharma, the then ld.Civil Judge, Rohtak to restrain the defendants from auctioning the sites of the shops on 23.04.2001 and that the auctioning was stayed by that Court. 3. The defendants vide letter dated 29.12.1989 invited offers from the members of the Society for the sites of shops measuring 30 Sq. yards on the basis of Resolution No.9 on the reserved minimum price of Rs.750/- per Sq. yard. It was also decided that shop sites would be allotted to the highest bidder whose offer along with 10% earnest money would be reaching the office of the Society on 25.01.1990. So, she being a member of the Society was eligible and having a right, deposited the earnest money of Rs.2250/- vide Cheque No.308111 dated 24.01.1990 on RSA No.2134 of 2009 ..3. 25.01.1990 and obtained the receipt thereof. However, till date no site has ever been allotted to her though a period of ten years has already been elapsed. No information was given to her about the allotment of shop sites. Now the defendants are threatening to allot the said sites to others for which they have no right and their action be declared as illegal. They are liable to be restrained from allotting any site to anybody else except her as they have refused to accept her request. She is also ready to make the payment of the remaining amount. Hence, the suit. 4. The defendants in their joint written statement have pleaded that the plaintiff has neither any cause of action nor locus-standi to file the suit. The suit is not maintainable in the present form. The plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has concealed the material facts. The Society has to follow and implement the decision taken by its Managing Committee and approved by the general body. They have auctioned the shops after adopting the legal procedure in favour of the highest bidders. The resolution dated 23.04.2001 passed by the Managing Committee of the Society has been confirmed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rohtak, therefore, there is no question of any irregularity in the process of auction. The case filed by Kirpal Singh Hans has already been dismissed as withdrawn. The decision was taken by the Managing Committee of the Society for allotting sites for shops to the members of the Society getting a minimum price of Rs.750/- per Sq. yard with 10% earnest money. The plaintiff had paid the RSA No.2134 of 2009 ..4.. earnest money of Rs.2250/- but she has ignored the subsequent part of Resolution No.9 of the Managing Committee of the Society passed on 29.12.1989. In case of allotment of the shop 40% amount of the offer was payable within 30 days of allotment, otherwise the earnest money was to be forfeited by the Society. The balance 50% amount was to be paid on the offer of the possession of the site in advance. The Society had a right to withdraw the offer without assigning any reason. The plaintiff has not paid 40% amount as per the requirement and, thus, her earnest money was liable to be forfeited but keeping in view the co-operative spirit her earnest money has been adjusted in her final bill of the unit allotted by the Society. All other allegations were also denied in toto and dismissal of the sit with costs was prayed for.” 5. On the pleadings the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court: i) Whether the proposed auction of the defendants regarding the suit property belonging to the defendant is illegal, null and void, if so to what effect? OPP ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for allotment of shop/site in the suit property, from the defendants as alleged if so to what effect? OPP iii) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPP iv) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD V) Relief. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be RSA No.2134 of 2009 ..5.. dismissed. Both the Courts below, after the evidence on record led by the parties, have held that the plaintiff had failed to establish that any shop site measuring 30 Sq. yards had been allotted to any person. It was further held that no shop site measuring 30 Sq. yards had been auctioned and hence, the plaintiff had no cause of action to file the suit. As per the plaintiff, she had deposited the amount for allotment of shop in her name on 25.01.1990 but made no effort thereafter and filed the suit in the year 2001 i.e after 11 years. No substantial question of law arises in this case. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. October 24, 2009 (SABINA) Seema-II Judge