Smt. Chandrakanta Khorwal ( Vice ... vs (1) Delhi Prantiya Raigar

Delhi District Court

Smt. Chandrakanta Khorwal ( Vice ... vs (1) Delhi Prantiya Raigar ... on 30 September, 2015

Author: Sh. Atul Aggrawal

              IN THE COURT OF SHRI A.K. AGRAWAL CIVIL JUDGE­01 
                             ( WEST),  TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI..


Unique ID No. 02401C0312312014
C.S No. :   248/14

Smt. Chandrakanta Khorwal ( Vice President)
W/o Sh. Khem Chand Khorwal
R/o E­315, Madipur Colony
New Delhi­63. 
                                                                                          ..................Plaintiff
Vs 

(1)      Delhi Prantiya Raigar Panchayat ( DPRP Centre)
         ( through its president/general secretary)
(2)      Mr. Kanhiyalal Siwal ( President)
         Delhi Prantiya Raigar Panchayat  ( Regd.)
(3)      Sh. Tirbhuvan Jaluthria General Secretary
         Having their office address at 
         Gali No. 53, Ganga Mata Mandir
         Raigarpura Karol Bagh, New Delhi
(4)      Chowki Indharge Madipur
         through SHO Punjabi Bagh, Delhi

                                                                                     .................Defendants

                                                         ORDER

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff in her capacity as vice­ president of Delhi Prantiya Raigar Panchayat Branch Madipur (hereinafter referred to as "DPRP Madipur Branch") having been elected in September 2012 and she has been authorised to file this suit vide resolution 05.07.2014 of the executive body. C.S no. 248/14 Chandrkanta Khorwal vs Delhi Prantiya Raigar Pandhayat 1/11 As per plaintiff, DPRP Madipur Branch is an independent body. Further submits that defendant No.1 i.e. Delhi Prantiya Raigar Panchayat (DPRP Central) is a registered society with Registrar of Societies and the member of DPRP are governed by the rules and regulations and bye laws of the society.

2. The plaintiff has alleged that in the year 2011, the executive committee of defendant No.1, before holding its election, on its own, changed the by­laws without taking into the confidence of the whole society and without following the due process and without calling the General body and taking their approval.

3. She further submits that conflict between the DPRP Central and DPRP Madipur Branch started when the Branch Panchayat got the information that a property belonging to DPRP Madipur Branch had been unlawfully, illegally, unathorisedly sold by the legal heirs of Late Smt. Naraini Devi (who had executed a Will in favour of Madipur Branch Panchayat). There was connivance and collusion between the secretary of DPRP (Central) and the said legal heirs, in selling the said property.

4. Plaintiff further states that defendant No.1 tried to bypass the above matter when DPRP Madipur Branch asked it to about appropriate action taken in this regard. Moreover instead of taking any action, defendant No.2 called and pressurized the president and vice­president of DPRP Madipur Branch to withdraw the aforesaid complaint against its Secretary or to face consequences. Thereafter the president and the other office bearers of defendant No.1 with their pre­occupied plan, started harassing the office bearers of DPRP Madipur Branch C.S no. 248/14 Chandrkanta Khorwal vs Delhi Prantiya Raigar Pandhayat 2/11 and threatened to dissolve the executive body of Madipur Branch on false and frivolous allegations. They also started levelling false and frivolous allegations against the member of the society and started playing policy of divide and rule and also tried to create differences in executive committee of DPRP Madipur Branch.

5. On 05.07.2014, the honorary/nominated/elected members of the cabinet of DPRP Madipur Branch, suddenly received a letter dated 04.07.2014 alongwith notice dated 02.07.2014 from the defendants stating that a Sakal Panchayat had been called on 13.07.2014 at 11 a.m. at Vishnu Mandir, Madipur Colony, without the knowledge, consent and without taking into confidence of the executive members of DPRP Madipur Branch. The plaintiff alleges that the said Panchayat had been called by the defendants with malafide intention and with a view to dissolve the elected/nominated executive body of DPRP Madipur Branch, which fact was clear from the agenda of the said meeting, set by the defendants.

6. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants have no right or authority to call the Sakal Panchayat of Madipur Branch or to fix the agenda without the consent and approval of the executive committee of DPRP Madipur Branch as it was beyond jurisdiction of defendants and against the rules and regulations or Bye laws of defendant No.1. Therefore the defendants were liable to be restrained from holding Sakal Panchayat of Madipur Branch. It is also stated that the Chowki Incharge Madipur in collussion with other defendants, did not take any action against the defendants despite complaint made to it by the president of DPRP Madipur Branch.

C.S no. 248/14 Chandrkanta Khorwal vs Delhi Prantiya Raigar Pandhayat 3/11

7. Accordingly, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration that Notice dated 02.07.2015 and Letter dated 04.07.2014 received on 05.07.2014 for calling Sakal Panchayat on 13.07.2014 at 11 a.m. at Vishnu Mandir (Raigar Samaj), Madipur, issued by the defendants, be declared as illegal, null and void and having no force in the eyes of law. Plaintiff further seeks decree of declaration thereby declaring that the resolutions passed by defendants, if any, on 13.07.2014 be declared as null and void and not enforceable. Lastly, plaintiff seeks Permanent Injunction against the defendants thereby restraining them from calling the Sakal Panchayat on 13.07.2014 as aforesaid.

8. A Composite Written Statement was filed by defendants wherein they state that the plaintiff has no cause of action to institute the present suit against them as neither any branch of defendant no.1 nor the plaintiff /other office bearer of DPRP Madipur Branch, has any right to file or institute a suit against the defendants as per law. It was further stated that DPRP Madipur Branch was not a separate legal entity and it was created by defendant no.1 through its own bye laws for its assistance as a non­registered branch, for the welfare and interest of people of Madipur. DPRP Madipur Branch was a part and parcel of defendant no.1 and was under its control and supervision as per bye laws of defendant no.1. Also state that DPRP Madipur does not have its own existence without defendant no.1 and it was not a registered society whereas defendant no.1 was a duly registered society.

9. It was further stated that the suit of plaintiff had become infructuous as a General Body Meeting of Sakal Panchayat has been successfully held by the people of the area of Madipur on 13.07.2014 as per directions of this court. C.S no. 248/14 Chandrkanta Khorwal vs Delhi Prantiya Raigar Pandhayat 4/11 Defendants have further alleged that plaintiff and other office bearers are misusing funds of society and innocent residents of Madipur and hence their arbitrary exercise of power was liable to be stayed immediately.

10. They allege that plaintiff and other office bearers are themselves guilty of misconduct, misbehaviour and misuse of the power of their posts. Moreover, they had not called any General Body Meeting till date despite their assurances to defendant no.1, hence defendant no.1 had to call the Sakal Panchayat on 13.07.2014, in the interest of welfare of people of Madipur Area, on their demand. The defendants have also made certain other allegations against plaintiff and other office bearers of DPRP Madipur Branch, however they are not being reproduced here since they are not material for the purposes of this order. The defendants also specifically denied the allegations levelled against them and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

11. Replication was filed by the plaintiff denying the contentions raised in the W.S.

12. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that various applications have been moved by both the parties during the pendency of the suit and arguments have also been addressed at length on almost each date of hearing. During the pendency of one such application U/o VII Rule 11 CPC moved by defendants, a statement of plaintiff was recorded on 24.07.2015 wherein she stated on behalf of the executive body of DPRP Madipur branch, that the elections of the executive body would be held on or before 26.01.2016. In view of the said statement of plaintiff, the defendants no.2 and 3 (defendant no.1 is being represented by C.S no. 248/14 Chandrkanta Khorwal vs Delhi Prantiya Raigar Pandhayat 5/11 defendant no.2 and 3) also got their statement recorded on the same day that they will not enforce the resolution dated 13.07.2014 before 26.01.2016.

The question before the court then was "whether the cause of action to sue the defendants still survived in view of the above statements or not ?"

13. The Ld. Counsel for plaintiff vehemently argued that the cause of action survived since the Sakal panchayat was called by the defendants illegally and without authority and certain resolutions were passed against the plaintiffs which were prejudicial to the interests of the executive body of DPRP Madipur Branch and they were required to be declared as null and void. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for defendants submitted that the cause of action no longer survives since the executive body of both the DPRP Madipur Branch and DPRP Central would be re­constitued after fresh elections, as the term of both the bodies, had already expired. DPRP Central had already declared elections which was fixed for 02.10.2015 and DPRP Madipur Branch would similarly conduct elections on or before 26.01.2016. Hence suit had become infructous.

14. I have given my thoughtful considerations to the arguments of both sides. At the outset it is pertinent to mention that even though in the plaint, the plaintiff states that DPRP Madipur Branch is an independent body, however vide her statement recorded on 03.09.2015, the plaintiff admits that DPRP Madipur Branch works under DPRP Central i.e. defendant no.1. This is also evident from the fact that the plaintiff's Madipur Branch has been using the name, registration number and logo of defendant no.1 in its letter head, while making its communications. Moreover the plaintiff has also filed the constitution of defendant C.S no. 248/14 Chandrkanta Khorwal vs Delhi Prantiya Raigar Pandhayat 6/11 no.1 alongwith the plaint and no other seperate constitution of Madipur Branch was filed so as to prove that DPRP Madipur Branch was a separate entity. Moreover if DPRP Madipur Branch does not come under DPRP Central, than there was no reason for the plaintiff to seek the reliefs as sought in the present suit against a rank outsider, who has nothing to do with the affairs of plaintiff's body, let alone having power to dissolve it. These facts make it clear that the DPRP Madipur Branch comes under DPRP Central and is not an independent body.

15. I have already stated above that there are many existing disputes between DPRP Madipur Branch and DPRP Central and both the parties have complete distrust between them which has lead to various litigations and complaints being made by them against one another. Hence in order to see whether the cause of action survives in the suit or not, it would be pertinent to refer to the prayer portion of the plaint firstly. The plaintiff has sought the following reliefs:­

1) Decree of declaration that notice 02.07.2014 and letter dt. 04.07.2014 received on 05.07.2014 for calling Sakal Panchayat on 13.07.2014 at 11 a.m. at Vishnu Mandir, Madipur, be declared as illegal, null and void and having no force in the eyes of law.

2) Decree of declaration thereby declaring Resolution passed by defendants if any, on 13.07.2014, be declared as null, void and unenforceable.

3) Decree of permanent injunction against the defendants thereby restraining them from calling the Sakal Panchayat on 13.07.2014.

16. Now the grounds on which the above reliefs is being sought is apparent from paras 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the plaint whereby the plaintiff alleges C.S no. 248/14 Chandrkanta Khorwal vs Delhi Prantiya Raigar Pandhayat 7/11 that the said Sakal Panchayat had been called by the defendants with malafide intention with a view to dissolve elected executive body of DPRP Madipur Branch, which fact was clear from the agenda of the said meeting. The plaintiff further asserts that the defendants have no right or authority to call the Sakal Panchayat of Madipur Branch or to fix the agenda without the consent and approval of the executive committee of DPRP Madipur Branch as it was beyond jurisdiction of defendants and against the rules and regulations or Bye laws of defendant No. 1.

17. As far as the third relief regarding permanent injunction is concerned, it has undisputedly become infructous since the Sakal Panchayat has already been held on 13.07.2014. Hence now only the other two reliefs of declaration remain for consideration of this court. In this light, I will examine the statement of plaintiff recorded on 24.07.2015 and 03.09.2015.

18. The plaintiff seeks the Decree of Declaration that notice dated 02.07.2014 and letter dated 04.07.2014 received on 05.07.2014 for calling Sakal Panchayat on 13.07.2014 at 11 a.m. at Vishnu Mandir, Madipur be declared as legal null and void and having no force in the eyes of law, on the ground that the defendants had no right or authority to call the Sakal Panchayat, without consent and approval of executive committee of DPRP Madipur Branch. In the plaint, the plaintiff had claimed that DPRP Madipur Branch was an independent body however, I have already held above that in view of categorical admission of plaintiff vide her statement recorded on 03.09.2015 and also in view of documents on record, it is crystal clear that DPRP Madipur Branch does not have independent C.S no. 248/14 Chandrkanta Khorwal vs Delhi Prantiya Raigar Pandhayat 8/11 existance and the same works under DPRP Central. Moreover the constitution of DPRP Central is also applicable to DPRP Madipur Branch. Under such circumstances, DPRP Central was within its legal rights to call the Sakal Panchayat of Madipur area. So by her own admission of plaintiff, this relief of declaration is not maintainable against the defendants.

19. Now as far as the relief of Decree of declaration thereby declaring Resolution passed by defendant if any, on 13.07.2014, be declared as null, void and unenforceable is concerned, the plaintiff seeks this relief on the ground that the defendants wanted to dissolve the elected executive body of DPRP Madipur Branch before expiry of its term through the resolution of the said Panchayat as evident from paras 14 to 17 of the plaint. In this regard it is pertinent to mention that the admitted term of plaintiff's executive body of DPRP Madipur Branch was for a period of three years. In the plaint, it is stated that the present executive body was elected in September 2012. So the term of this body expired in September 2015. This fact has also been admitted by the plaintiff.

20. Infact in the light of above facts, the plaintiff got her statement recorded that the executive body of DPRP Madipur Branch would be holding fresh elections on or before 26.01.2016. Under such circumstances, since the term of the present executive body of DPRP Madipur Branch has already expired, there no longer remains any question of its pre­mature dissolution by the defendants before expiry of its complete tenure. Infact the defendants on the other hand, have given an undertaking that they will not enforce the resolution dated 13.07.2014 before 26.01.2016, let alone enforcing it after September 2015. Hence as far as this relief C.S no. 248/14 Chandrkanta Khorwal vs Delhi Prantiya Raigar Pandhayat 9/11 is concerned, the suit has become infructous due to expiry of term of executive body of DPRP Madipur Branch and the undertaking given by plaintiff regarding holding of fresh elections.

21. Under such circumstances, it would be a futile exercise to continue with the suit without any surviving cause of action. In Sushil Bhardwaj vs Ved Parkash Shastri CS (OS) 995/2002 decided on 28 August, 2008, it was observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that :­ " In a previous decision, i.e. Shikharchand Vs. Mst. Bari Bai AIR 1974 MP 75, the High Court had much arrived at much the same conclusion in relation to the term "otherwise", saying that it clearly indicates that it is open to the Court to base the judgment on statement made by a party not only in the pleadings but also de hors the pleadings. The Court crucially also held that such admissions may be made either expressly or constructively. It may also be noticed that a provision under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is flexible enough to enable the Court to dismiss the suit if the situation so warrants. The provision is not confined to an order decreeing the claims of the plaintiff, against the defendant; the terminology used is wide enough to comprehend situations where admissions either in the pleadings or "otherwise" can result in dismissal of the suit, which would result in the drawing up of a decree."

Furthermore in a recent case titled as Keshav Chander Thakur & Anr. Vs. Krishan Chander & Ors. 211 (2014) DLT 149 (DB), it was similarly held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that :­ C.S no. 248/14 Chandrkanta Khorwal vs Delhi Prantiya Raigar Pandhayat 10/11 " However, in our view given the nature of pleadings and admitted documents on record and the extensive arguments advanced by the parties on the issues discussed herein, this was a fit case for the Court to exercise powers under Order XII Rule 6 CPC where the Court has powers to suo moto pass a judgment. There is no requirement in Order XII Rule 6 CPC for filing of a formal application. The Court can on its own motion without any application by a party proceed to pass a decree on admissions as stated in Order XII Rule 6 CPC. In our view based on the pleadings and documents placed on record by the parties there are clear admissions of fact which warrant passing of the order of dismissal of the plaint."

In the light of above judgments, I will proceed as per the provisions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. In view of my above observations and findings, the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed. However the plaintiff will be at liberty to take appropriate legal steps as per law against the defendants, qua the existing disputes between the parties. No order as to Costs.

Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

File be consigned to Record Room after due complaince.

Announced in the open court                                                   ( A.K. Agrawal)
today on  30.09.2015                                       Civil Judge ­01 ( West)/Delhi



C.S no. 248/14                             Chandrkanta Khorwal vs Delhi Prantiya Raigar Pandhayat        11/11