IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. R.S.A. No. 88 of 2010. Reserved on: 11.08.2010. Decided on: 23.08.2010. Mahakali Mandir Sabha, Purani Mandi, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. and another. …Appellants. -Versus- Jagdish Chand and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the appellants. : Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No. 1. : Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. None for respondent No. 2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2009, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 76/2008. 2. Material facts necessary for adjudication of the Regular Second Appeal are that the appellants-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiffs” for convenience sake), had instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction. The plaintiffs’ case, in a nut-shell, is that Sri Mahakali Mandir Sabha Purani Mandi is a Society having registration No. 460/77 is duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 with its head office at Purani Mandi and 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. has duly elected President, Secretary, Cashier and other office bearers to manage and regulate the working and functions of the Society. Prior to April, 1998, the respondent-defendant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “the defendant No. 1”), was holding the office of Cashier. The election for the working committee of 1998-99 was held on 08.04.1998. The name of defendant No. 1 was proposed for President-ship of the Committee, however, he has shown his reluctance to hold any office of the working Committee of plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 after ceasing to be the Cashier after 8.4.1998, was required to hand-over the charge of the books, record and ornaments to the newly elected Cashier of the Society. He handed-over the current cash book of the Society to the newly elected Cashier only on 09.08.1998 and promised to hand-over the rest of the articles lateron. The defendant No. 1 delayed the handing over of the charge of the Deity despite repeated demands, which action of the defendant No. 1 has been termed as illegal. It is further averred that defendant No. 1 prepared to form his own Committee and in furtherance of his designs, he started interfering in the management and working of the plaintiff. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants. It was averred on merits that the management of affairs of Sri Mahakali Mandir, office bearers were elected with the consent of Sri Mata Mahakaliji. It is admitted by the defendants that defendant No. 1 was the Cashier prior to 08.04.1998. The defendant No. 1 is a perpetual Pujari and the cash book was handed over to the Cashier on 09.08.1998. It is denied that he started levelling baseless and frivolous allegations against the plaintiff No. 1 and other members of the Committee. It is also pleaded by the defendants that the Management Committee elected on 08.04.1998, was dissolved by Sri Mahakali Deviji. After the dissolution of the Committee, new Committee was appointed. The learned trial Court framed the issues on 06.11.1999. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 16.10.2008. Plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi. The learned Presiding Officer dismissed the appeal on 26.11.2009. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. 4. Notice was issued by this Court on 18th March, 2010, pursuant to which, Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent-defendant No. 1. 5. Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously argued that the judgments passed by both the Courts below are not sustainable in the eyes of law. He then argued that both the Courts below have failed to correctly interpret Clause-21 of Constitution of the Society. He further argued that the Courts below have failed to consider Ex. PW1/A & Ex.PW1/E-1 to E-14 and that the constitution of new Committee on the basis of resolution of DW-1 is not in accordance with the Constitution of the Deity, i.e., Ex. PW1/A. He has also argued that the Management Committee could not be dissolved which was constituted on 8th April, 1998. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 7. It has come on record that defendant No. 1 is the founder member of Sri Mahakali Mandir Sabha since 1964. He is also Pujari of Shri Mahakali Mandir/Deity. It has also come on record that w.e.f. 1964 to 1998, no Committee was constituted of Sri Mahakali Mandir Sabha. The first Committee was constituted on 08.04.1998, whereby plaintiff No. 2 was elected as President of the Society and Shri Dayal Singh was elected as Secretary of Sri Mahakali Mandir Sabha. As per Article 5 of the Constitution of Sri Mahakali Mandir Sabha, i.e., Ex. PW1/A, special meeting can be called for election of the office bearers of Sri Mahakali Mandir Sabha after giving 15 days or one month’s notice after displaying the notice on the notice board of the temple. New elections were held for constituting the fresh Committee on 18.11.1998 vide resolution Ex. DW1/A. Accordingly, new office bearers were elected including defendant No. 1, as President. According to Article 21 of the Constitution of Sri Mahakali Mandir Sabha, in the eventuality of there being any differences in the working of the Executive Committee, the Pujari has absolute power to interfere and make arrangement for smooth functioning of the Sabha in order to preserve the property of the temple. Shri Dharam Singh was elected as “Goor” on the day when the elections were held. The elections as per Ex.DW1/A were duly ratified by the “Goor”, who was sitting on the seat of Mata Mahakali on that day. The plaintiffs have not challenged the election of the new governing body of the temple held on 8th November, 1998. After the elections held on 8.11.1998, the office bearers have changed and in these circumstances, it was not permissible under law to institute the present suit by the plaintiffs. The suit could only be filed on behalf of the Sri Mahakali Mandi Sabha by the newly elected President or Secretary. The learned Courts below have come to the right conclusion that the defendants were not causing any interference in the management and working of Sri Mahakali Mandir Sabha. The defendants have been found to be duly elected and authorized to manage the affairs of Sri Mahakali Mandir Sabha after the new Committee was constituted on 08.11.1998. 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no substantial question of law in the Regular Second Appeal and the same is dismissed. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge August 23, 2010. (bhupender)