Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan ... vs Kandi Friends Education Trust And ...

3. Short facts giving rise to present appeal are that Kandi Friends Educational Trust (Trust for short) was set up for establishing professional educational institutions with prominent educationists and industrialists of the State of Punjab on September 24, 1997. It is the case of the appellant that Gurcharan Singh, her husband was the Founder Chairman of the Trust whereas the appellant was a Trustee along with the Founder Chairman. In 1998, certain new trustees were inducted including one B.S. Randhawa. In September, 2002, elections were held and Gurcharan Singh was again elected as the Chairman of the Trust. B.S. Randhawa and his wife Hardev Kaur raised protest against the said election. In December, 2002, Gurcharan Singh, Chairman of the Trust sought certain amendments in the Constitution of the Trust which were approved by majority though B.S. Randhawa and Hardev Kaur opposed to such amendments. On June 21, 2003, Gurcharan Singh, Chairman of the Trust was murdered while he was taking stroll in a park along with the appellant. B.S. Randhawa, who was one of the Trustees, was arrested as the main accused and was charged for committing murder of Gurcharan Singh. F.I.R. No. 271 of 2003 was registered on the same day at Mohali Police Station. In view of death of Gurcharan Singh, election of the Chairman was again held on July 23, 2003 and the appellant was unanimously elected as the Chairperson. Ms. Japneet Kaur was nominated as trustee being daughter of late Gurcharan Singh and she also started attending meetings of the Trust. B.S. Randhawa and Hardev Kaur were obviously unhappy with the development. Hardev Kaur, hence, filed a suit on July 25, 2003 for a declaration that all proceedings conducted by the defendants in the Meeting dated July 23, 2003 in which the appellant was elected as the Chairperson were illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside. Certain other reliefs were also claimed. In the suit, the appellant herein was impleaded as defendant No. 4. Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for interim relief, but only limited interim relief was granted and the plaintiff Smt. Hardev Kaur was allowed to attend meetings of the Trust. Other interim reliefs were expressly refused. Having failed to get relief sought in interim application, Hardev Kaur and B.S. Randhawa filed another suit, i.e. the present suit in October, 2003 in the name of Kandi Friends Education Trust through its so-called General Secretary Jaspal Singh. Though the appellant was duly elected as Chairperson of the Trust, she was wrongly described as Trustee and it was stated by the plaintiff that they were in-charge and in management of the Trust. A declaration was sought that the resolution dated October 14, 2003 adopted by the defendants was illegal, null and void. Consequential reliefs were also prayed.

4. On June 4, 2005, one more suit was filed by Jaspal Singh for declaration and permanent injunction against the appellant. In interim injunction, only status quo was ordered to be maintained by the Court. Jaspal Singh also filed a transfer application No. 14 of 2006 in the District Court, Ropar for transfer of suit from the Court of Smt. Asha Kondal to the Court of Shri A.S. Garewal, which was, however, dismissed as withdrawn.

5. On November 2, 2006, the Trust filed an application under Section 24 of the Code in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana being Civil Miscellaneous No. 22108 CII of 2006 for transfer of Suit No. 506 of 2003 pending in the Court of Smt. Asha Kondal, Sub-Judge, (Sr. Dvn.), Ropar to any other Court of competent jurisdiction in Chandigarh or in the State of Haryana in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. It was inter alia alleged in the Transfer Application that though the suit was instituted in 2003 seeking injunction against the defendant-appellant herein and others, it was pending even in November, 2006. More than three years had passed and yet there was no much progress in the case. It was further alleged that there was lot of local pressure which had led to delay and it had given advantage to the defendants as they were in power and were trying to protract the proceedings. It was asserted that the Institution was one of the most prestigious institutions in the area and lots of funds were generated as there were several students. Hence, the Committee members who were in office were trying their level best to stall the proceedings by using various tactics. It was also stated that though the term of the appellant expired on August 31, 2005, she continued to be in power simply because no case filed against her was decided either way. A prayer was, therefore, made to transfer the case.

9. The aforesaid order is challenged by the appellant in the present appeal. On January 5, 2007, notice was issued by this Court and further proceedings in the suit were stayed. Counter affidavit was thereafter filed. The matter then was ordered to be posted for final hearing.

(emphasis supplied)

18. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law after hearing the parties. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.

19. Before parting with the matter, we make it clear that we have not entered into correctness or otherwise of what is stated by the plaintiff or by the defendants and we may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on allegations and counter-allegations. As and when the matter will be placed before the High Court, the Court will take an appropriate decision on its own merits without being inhibited or influenced by the observations made by us in this judgment.