- (1.) THE plaintiff applicant M/s. Marwari Sabha Pilakhwa, a society register ed under the Societies Registration Act, and Bhagwat Prasad, have filed this revision under Section 115 of the C. P. Code against a revisional order passed by the Additional District Judge, Meerut, refusing the grant of a temporary injunction restraining the de fendants opposite parties from interfering with the functioning of Bhagwat Prasad as the manager of the Marwari Intermediate College run by the Marwari Sabha Pilakh wa pending their suit for a permanent in junction in the court of the Munsif Ghazia-bad.
(2.) ADMITTEDLY Marwari Sabha Pi lakhwa runs and manages the Marwari Intermediate College, a secondary school recognised by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh. The provisions of the Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations made thereunder applied to the said college. Under the pro visions of the said Act and the Regulations a scheme has been framed providing for the rules for management of the said college. Under the said scheme, admittedly Bhagwat Prasad was elected as the Manager of the Management Committee of the College at an election held on 13-6-1968 for a term of three years. Admittedly he worked in that office till 25-4-1971 when it is alleged that at a meeting of the Committee, Bhag wat Prasad was removed from the manager ship and was replaced by Kesho Ram Gupta, the third defendant, by a resolution passed at the meeting. Plaintiffs in their plaint alleged that the meeting which was held was collusive and illegal and Bhagwat Prasad was never removed. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that new elections of the office-bearers of the Committee of manage ment were duly held on 12-5-1971 at which Bhagwat Prasad was re-elected as Manager. The defendants denied in their written state ment that any meeting was held on 12-5-1971 for electing new officer-bearers as alleg ed by the plaintiff. The defendants set up the case that at a meeting held on 15-5-1971 new elections were held at which Kesho Ram Gupta was formally elected as the Manager for a term of three years along with other office-bearers. The above allega tions and counter-allegations clearly show that there are two factions in the body managing the college and there are two claimants for the office of Managership, Bhagwat Prasad, the second plaintiff and Kesho Ram Gupta, the third defendant. Bhagwat Prasad to secure his position commenced the suit seeking a relief of permanent injunction against the defen dants who claimed to have been elected as the new office-bearers at the meeting held on 15-5-1971. Alleging that Bhagwat Prasad was in possession of his office an appli cation was made for a temporary injunc tion pending the suit restraining the defen dants from interfering with the functioning as manager of the college by Bhagwat Pra sad. The learned Munsif on 15-5-1971, the day on which the suit was instituted, passed an ex parte order to the effect that in the meantime the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the management. After notice to the defendants and hearing them the learned Munsif on 4-9-1971 dismissed the plaintiff's application for temporary in junction mainly on the finding that Bhagwat Prasad had been ousted from the office of managership on 25-4- 1971 and Kesho Ram Gupta was in control of the management as Manager. Against this order of the learned Munsif the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the Civil Judge of Ghaziabad who took the view on the material on record that the plaintiffs had a prima facie case and Bhag wat Prasad was not ousted from the office of managership. The learned Civil Judge by his order dated 16-9-1971 allowed the appeal and passed a temporary injunction to the effect that since Bhagwat Prasad has been acting as Manager he should continue to act as such and no one will interfere with his management. The defendants then went up in revision to the District Judge of Meerut under the amended Section 115 of the C. P. Code which gives concurrent juris diction to the District Judge with the Hieh Court to entertain and hear a revision. This revision was heard by the learned Additional District Judge who found that the learned Civil Judee exercised his jurisdiction illegal ly and with material irregularity inasmuch as he omitted from consideration material evidence on record in arriving at his finding and proceeded in the matter against the well established principles of grant of temporary injunction in interfering with the order of the trial Court who in its discretion refused to grant the temporary injunction. The re vision was allowed, the order of the learned Civil Judge was set aside and the applica tion of the plaintiff for temporary injunction, stood rejected. It is in these circumstances that the plaintiffs invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the C. P. Code. 3 A. I have heard at some length Sri Brij Lal Guptn. learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs appellants, and Sri S. N. Kacker. learned counsel appearing for the defendants opposite parties; with the assistance of the learned counsel I have been taken through the relevant material on re cord. Having given my serious considera tion to the learned arguments raised at the bar and the material on record, I have come to the conclusion that no case has been made out for interfering with the order of the learned Additional District Judge dis missing the application of the plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction.
(3.) BEFORE I embark upon the discus sion of the case on merits, I think it pro per at this stage to dispose of an objection raised by Sri Gupta on behalf of the plain tiff applicants to the legality of the revi-sional jurisdiction exerciseu by the Addi tional District Judge. The learned counsel contended that under Section 21 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 (Act No. XII of 1887) an appeal from any order of the Munsif lies to the Dis trict Judge and when a Civil Judge exer cises the appellate jurisdiction then he would be deemed to be exercising the juris diction as a District Judge deriving autho rity from the District Judge who has the power to transfer the appeals which lie befere him to a Civil Judge under Section 22 of the Said Act, therefore, the District Judge cannot be the revising authority of a decision of a Civil Judge who while de ciding the appeal was exercising power vest ing in the District Judge.;