High Court · 2025

Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back to the Assistant Registrar to decide the issue of General Body afresh strictly in accordance with law and bye-laws of the Society.

2. The appeal has been filed by the respondent no. 3 in the writ petition and appellant nos. 2 to 6 along with an application seeking leave to appeal.

3. Submissions have been made that the respondent Mithai Lal, had questioned the validity of order dated 24/25.08.2020 passed by the Assistant Registrar, whereby the Assistant Registrar had determined the electoral college of the Society while dealing with rival claims and approved a list of 22 valid members. Pursuant to the said list, elections were held on 21.09.2020, wherein the Committee of Management was elected. The present petition was filed on 27.10.2020 questioning the validity of the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, which resulted in the election dated

21.09.2020. Initially, the Committee of Management was not impleaded as party, however, under the direction of the Court, the Committee of Management was impleaded as a party, but the appellant nos. 2 to 6, who were included in the electoral college by the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, were not impleaded as party respondents.

4. The plea raised before the learned Single Judge by the respondent-petitioner was that the objections filed by him were not dealt with by the Assistant Registrar on the purported ground that the same had already been decided by previous order dated

26.02.2020 when factually the same had not been decided by the said order dated 26.02.2020. Learned Single, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the Assistant Registrar, in fact, by order dated 26.02.2020 has not decided the objections of the petitioner based on which, the order impugned was passed.

5. In the present appeal, counsel for the appellants made submissions that the consequence of the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge is that the inclusion of appellant nos. 2 to 6 as members of the Society, stands set aside without affording any opportunity of hearing to them. Submissions have been made that once the petition was filed after the elections took place on

21.09.2020, it was incumbent on the respondents to have impleaded the appellants as party respondents to the petition. On failure to implead them who were necessary parties to the said petition, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. In any case, the petition could not have been decided without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner supported the order impugned. Submissions have been made that a bare perusal of the order passed by the Assistant Registrar would reveal that none of the objections raised was considered and it was wrongly indicated that the objections raised already stood decided by order dated 26.02.2020 and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the order impugned in the writ petition. Further submissions have been made that the aspect of non impleadment sought to be raised before this Court in appeal for the first time, whereas, in the first instance, the same should have been raised before the learned Single Judge, in absence thereof, the issue cannot be raised in appeal and, therefore, the application seeking to file appeal and the appeal itself deserve to be dismissed.

7. We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

8. It is not in dispute that the order impugned before the learned Single Judge dated 24/25.08.2020, had finalized the list of 22 members of the Society, which included appellant nos. 2 to 6. The challenge laid by the respondent-petitioner to the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, essentially pertains to the inclusion of the appellant nos. 2 to 6 as well as exclusion of certain other members. Once the challenge in the petition was to the inclusion of the appellant nos.2 to 6, they were necessary parties to the writ petition and challenge to their inclusion, could not have been laid in their absence. The mere fact that the learned Single Judge instead of itself deciding the writ petition has remanded back the matter, does not obviate the said requirement of impleading all necessary parties affected by the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. The submissions made that the plea was not raised before the learned Single Judge, cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the appeal has been filed by the appellant nos. 2 to 6 only on the ground that they were not before the learned Single Judge and were not heard and, therefore, there is no question of raising the said issue before the learned Single Judge.

9. In view of the above fact situation, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge dated 05.03.2025, cannot be sustained.

10. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal is allowed. The appeal filed by the appellants is allowed. The order dated

05.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge wherein, if deemed appropriate, the respondent-petitioner may implead the affected parties/appellant nos. 2 to 6, as party respondents to the petition and, thereafter, seek appropriate relief in accordance with law. In case the impleadment does not take place, as observed, in absence of the necessary parties, the petition would suffer its fate. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 RK/AKShukla (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back to the Assistant Registrar to decide the issue of General Body afresh strictly in accordance with law and bye-laws of the Society.

2. The appeal has been filed by the respondent no. 3 in the writ petition and appellant nos. 2 to 6 along with an application seeking leave to appeal.

3. Submissions have been made that the respondent Mithai Lal, had questioned the validity of order dated 24/25.08.2020 passed by the Assistant Registrar, whereby the Assistant Registrar had determined the electoral college of the Society while dealing with rival claims and approved a list of 22 valid members. Pursuant to the said list, elections were held on 21.09.2020, wherein the Committee of Management was elected. The present petition was filed on 27.10.2020 questioning the validity of the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, which resulted in the election dated

21.09.2020. Initially, the Committee of Management was not impleaded as party, however, under the direction of the Court, the Committee of Management was impleaded as a party, but the appellant nos. 2 to 6, who were included in the electoral college by the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, were not impleaded as party respondents.

4. The plea raised before the learned Single Judge by the respondent-petitioner was that the objections filed by him were not dealt with by the Assistant Registrar on the purported ground that the same had already been decided by previous order dated

26.02.2020 when factually the same had not been decided by the said order dated 26.02.2020. Learned Single, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the Assistant Registrar, in fact, by order dated 26.02.2020 has not decided the objections of the petitioner based on which, the order impugned was passed.

5. In the present appeal, counsel for the appellants made submissions that the consequence of the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge is that the inclusion of appellant nos. 2 to 6 as members of the Society, stands set aside without affording any opportunity of hearing to them. Submissions have been made that once the petition was filed after the elections took place on

21.09.2020, it was incumbent on the respondents to have impleaded the appellants as party respondents to the petition. On failure to implead them who were necessary parties to the said petition, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. In any case, the petition could not have been decided without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner supported the order impugned. Submissions have been made that a bare perusal of the order passed by the Assistant Registrar would reveal that none of the objections raised was considered and it was wrongly indicated that the objections raised already stood decided by order dated 26.02.2020 and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the order impugned in the writ petition. Further submissions have been made that the aspect of non impleadment sought to be raised before this Court in appeal for the first time, whereas, in the first instance, the same should have been raised before the learned Single Judge, in absence thereof, the issue cannot be raised in appeal and, therefore, the application seeking to file appeal and the appeal itself deserve to be dismissed.

7. We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

8. It is not in dispute that the order impugned before the learned Single Judge dated 24/25.08.2020, had finalized the list of 22 members of the Society, which included appellant nos. 2 to 6. The challenge laid by the respondent-petitioner to the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, essentially pertains to the inclusion of the appellant nos. 2 to 6 as well as exclusion of certain other members. Once the challenge in the petition was to the inclusion of the appellant nos.2 to 6, they were necessary parties to the writ petition and challenge to their inclusion, could not have been laid in their absence. The mere fact that the learned Single Judge instead of itself deciding the writ petition has remanded back the matter, does not obviate the said requirement of impleading all necessary parties affected by the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. The submissions made that the plea was not raised before the learned Single Judge, cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the appeal has been filed by the appellant nos. 2 to 6 only on the ground that they were not before the learned Single Judge and were not heard and, therefore, there is no question of raising the said issue before the learned Single Judge.

9. In view of the above fact situation, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge dated 05.03.2025, cannot be sustained.

10. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal is allowed. The appeal filed by the appellants is allowed. The order dated

05.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge wherein, if deemed appropriate, the respondent-petitioner may implead the affected parties/appellant nos. 2 to 6, as party respondents to the petition and, thereafter, seek appropriate relief in accordance with law. In case the impleadment does not take place, as observed, in absence of the necessary parties, the petition would suffer its fate. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 RK/AKShukla (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad