Court No. - 40
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7053 of 2019 Petitioner :- U.P Engines And Machines Pvt. Ltd. And Another Respondent :- Ramsharan Arya And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Krishna Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.10.2018 passed by trial court in Original Suit No. 1145 of 2010 (Ramsharan Arya Vs. U.P.Engines and Machines Pvt. Ltd. and another) as well as the order dated 26.07.2019 passed by the revisional court. By order dated 08.10.2018, the trial court had allowed application 120Ka filed by Anand Prakash Goel, claiming himself to be present secretary of Khadi Gram Udyog Vikas Mandal (registered) village Nagla, District Muzaffarnagar and has permitted his substitution in place of the original plaintiff Ramsharan Arya having died during the pendency of the suit. The revisional court has declined to interfere with the order passed by the trial court holding that thereby, the person claiming to be elected as secretary in place of deceased plaintiff, has been substituted and therefore, no revision would lie against such an order.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suit was instituted by Ramsharan Arya in his personal capacity, therefore, Anand Prakash Goel who sought substitution claiming to be present Secretary of the society, was not entitled to be substituted in his place. It is further submitted that the election of Anand Prakash Goel as Secretary is illegal and that the registration of the society has not been renewed since a long time.
A perusal of the plaint averments, particularly paragraph 3 and 20 reveals that the suit was instituted by Ramsharan Arya in his capacity as Secretary of Khadi Gram Udyog Vikas Mandal (registered). The rights claimed in the suit are in favour of the said society and not in favour of the plaintiff in individual capacity.
Under Section 6 of the Society registration Act, 1860, the society may sue or be sued in the name of the President, Chairman, or Principal Secretary, or Trustees, as shall be determined by the rules and regulations of the society and, in default of such determination, in the name of such person as shall be appointed by the governing body for the occasion. The trial court has recorded a specific finding that since the suit was instituted by the plaintiff for the benefit of the society and therefore, the present office bearer is entitled to be substituted after his death. The issue as whether the election was validly held or the registration of the society has been renewed or not could not be decided at this stage.
In considered opinion of this Court, the view taken by the trial court is perfectly justified and does not call for any interference in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 26.9.2019 PS