27.01.2025 Lord Budha So a Society& Others v. CORAM: HON’BLE
Case Details
Page 1 of 4 4 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 112 Hardeep Singh ingh Gill CR-5736-2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.01.2025 Lord Budha So a Society& Others Vs. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) Present:- cate Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate for the petitioner.
Legal Reasoning
ocate Mr.Munish Gupta, Advocat o 8. for respondents No.1 to 8 NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** Present petition under Art r Article 227 of the Constitution of India is fi is filed seeking setting aside of of the impugned order dated 10.10.2022 (A 2 (Annexure P7) passed by the the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludh Ludhiana vide which the applicatio ation (Annexure P4) filed by the petitioner/pla /plaintiff no.1 directing the defend fendants to produce the record, has been dism dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are are that the petitioner/plaintiff along with tw h two others filed suit for declara claration to the effect that the plaintiff no.1 o.1 is still Treasurer and plaintiffs N ffs No.2 and 3 are the Managing Committee M e Members of the defendant No.1/ o.1/Society; and that the alleged Memorandum dum of Understanding dated 10.01 0.01.2014 is an act of fraud and coercion, and and is therefore illegal; with the a he ancillary relief of permanent injunction res restraining the defendants from rom passing any resolution in SUNENA 2025.01.31 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 2 of 4 4 (cid:1) context to th o the said MOU dated 10.01.201 .2014; and suit for mandatory injunction dire directing defendants to hand ove over the records of the school being run und under the defendant No.1/Societ ciety; and suit for rendition of accounts direc directing the defendants to render nder the accounts in relation to the funds coll collected and spent on behalf of t of the defendant No.1 and the schools functio nctioning under the Trust. 3. In the said Suit, the petiti etitioner/plaintiff no.1 filed the present appl application dated ‘Nil’ (Annexur exure P4) for production of documents. s. Defendants No.2, 5 and 8 fil filed reply dated 29.09.2022 (Annexure P6) P6) to the said application stating ting therein that the defendants No.2 to 8 are n are not in possession of any record o ord of defendant No.1. In view of the categoric oric denial of the defendants, the a he application of the petitioner was dismissed ssed vide the impugned order dated ated 10.10.2022 (Annexure P7). 4. Learned counsel for the pe its petitioner/plaintiff No.1 submits that in Para 1 ra 15 of the present suit (Annexur lly exure P1) it had been specifically pleaded by the y the plaintiffs that:- “The plaintiffs have all the rights t nts hts to have access to the accounts and all the funds and receipts by the ts by the defendant no.1 and the plaintiff have also right to inspe ool inspect the records of the school being run under the. defendant rds ant no.1 society and the records relating to the Trust and its Man to Managing Committee in order to ascertain amount of profits earne arned during the period till date.” 5. It is submitted that in the w the written statement (Annexure P3) filed by t by the defendants in reply to the the above said Para 15, it was SUNENA 2025.01.31 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Page 3 of 4 4 (cid:1) admitted by t by the defendants that they were were in possession of the said records, and it nd it was stated as follows:- “15. That para no.15 of the pla e plaint has not been correctly stated. Under the law, all the me e members of the society have, access to the accounts and reco records of the society and the same was ever denied to the plain plaintiffs.” 6. It is submitted that in view view of the above admission on part of the de e defendants that they are in posse ossession of the accounts of the defendant-Soc Society, the present application tion of the petitioner seeking production of n of the said accounts, could not hav t have been dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the re e respondents No.1 to 8 submits that it is the the categoric case of the respon pondents that they are not in possession of n of the documents sought by the p he petitioner. It is submitted that it has not bee been admitted by the respondents nts at any stage that they are in possession of n of the said documents. Contenti ention of the petitioner to this extent is base based on misreading of the writte ritten statement (Annexure P3) filed by the r he respondents to the main suit. uit. Merely because there is no specific denia enial therein by the defendants th ts that records are not in their possession wo n would not imply that the defenda endants are in possession of the said documen ments. It is accordingly submitted tted that the application of the petitioner/pla /plaintiff was misconceived; and th d therefore, the present petition deserves to be o be dismissed. 8. Heard. SUNENA 2025.01.31 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 9. A perusal of the above ove noted facts indicates that Page 4 of 4 4 (cid:1) defendants h s have categorically stated in th their reply dated 29.09.2022 (Annexure P6) P6) to the present application that hat they are not in possession of the document ents. Further, there is no specifi ecific admission on part of the defendants, ev , even in the written statement(An (Annexure P3), that they are in possession of n of the documents sought by the p he petitioner. The plaintiff has to build his own wn case, and he cannot rely on any any admission/weakness of the defendants’ de s’ defence in order to prove his case case. 10. 11.
Decision
In view of the above, prese resent petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) if an if any also stand(s) disposed of. 27.01.2025 Sunena (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether spea Whether repo peaking/reasoned: eportable: Yes/No Yes/No SUNENA 2025.01.31 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)