Mr Kiran and Anr v. Mr Shantilal Bhagchand Kocheta Jain & Ors

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. JANUARY 13, 2017 Bs.. (Corrected & released on 8th February, 2017)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 13th January, 2017. + CS(OS) 322/2016 & IA No.10549/2016 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) KIRAN AND ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Manish Kaushik and Mr. Lovish Sharma, Advs. Versus SHANTILAL BHAGCHAND KOCHETA JAIN & ORS ..... Defendants Through: Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Varun Jain, Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Ms. Disha Vaish and Ms. Anisha Mathur, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. The present suit relates to the election of the National President of the defendant No.4 Shri All India Shwetambar Stanakwasi Jain Conference, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The said election for the period of 2016-2018 was, in the meeting of the members of the National Working Committee of defendant No.4 held on 24th January, 2016, announced to the held on 22nd May, 2016 and in accordance with the Rules and Bye-Laws of the defendant No.4, an Election Committee comprising of a Chief Election Officer and two Assistant Election Officers was constituted. The Chief Election Officer resigned on 5th May, 2016. The election as scheduled on 22nd May, 2016, in five zones in which India has been divided under the Rules and Bye-Laws of the defendant No.4 were held, except in the State of Tamil Nadu. The result of the said election held was announced on the same day. On 21st June, 2016, announcement was made of the election to be held in the State of Tamil Nadu on 26th June, 2016. 2. The plaintiffs, of which the plaintiff No.1 Mr. Kiran is a life member of the defendant No.4 and plaintiff No.2 Mr. A.S. Bora Jain was a candidate for the post of National President, on 23rd June, 2016 instituted this suit inter alia impugning the election process and for restraining the election scheduled on 26th June, 2016 in the State of Tamil Nadu. 3. The suit came up before this Court on 24th June, 2016 when, though summons thereof were issued but the interim order sought of restraining the election scheduled on 26th June, 2016 in the State of Tamil Nadu declined. 4. After the elections in the State of Tamil Nadu, the defendant No.5 Mr. M.L. Chopra Jain was declared elected as the National President of the defendant No.4. 5. The suit came up before this Court first on 5th August, 2016 when it was enquired from the counsel for the plaintiffs, whether not the suit had become infructuous. The counsel for the plaintiffs, agreeing therewith, sought adjournment to amend the plaint and which was allowed. The plaintiffs thereafter filed an application for amendment and which was allowed on 30th August, 2016. 6. The suit as it now stands impugns the election of the defendant No.5 Mr. M.L. Chopra Jain as the National President of the defendant No.4. 7. Pleadings were completed in the suit and the suit came up for framing of issues yesterday. 8. Finding that the election of the defendant No.5 was for a period of two years only i.e. till 31st December, 2017 / 31st March, 2018 as contended by the respective counsels, it was enquired from the counsels, as to what purpose framing the issues and putting the suit to trial would serve, inasmuch as, owing to the workload of this Court, there was hardly a possibility of the disposal of the said suit before the said dates. It was thus proposed that the suit could be disposed of by making appropriate arrangement for holding of the next election as soon as due and for ensuring that the lapses, if any in the election under challenge are not repeated in the next election. 9. Faced therewith, the counsel for the plaintiffs stated that his application for interim relief for setting aside of the election was also pending; it was his contention that the plaintiffs will either succeed or fail in the same and if the interim relief is denied, the suit itself would become infructuous. 10. In view of the aforesaid, on request, the matter was posted for hearing today. 11. The counsel for the plaintiffs and the senior counsel for all the defenda