A. K. Banerji, J. - (1.) This revision arises out of the order dated 6th September, 1993 passed by the Civil Judge, Meerut by which the said court rejected the defendant's application (Paper No. 19-Ga) and held that the said court had jurisdiction to try the suit.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the Meerut Collegiate Association which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, runs and manages the Meerut Degree College, Meerut. The said College is affiliated of the Meerut University and is governed by U. P. Universities Act, 1973. The said association for its efficient working has framed a set of Rules as per U. P, Universities Act and statutes The Rules provide for the constitution of the Committee of the Management for the purposes of managing the affairs of the College Rule 11 of the said Rules lays down that the Executive Committee shall consist the President, Vice-President, Honorary Secretary, Additional Secretary, Outgoing Secretary and 21 elected members. Note 1 to the said Rule 11 has come relevance in the present controversy and is, therefore, quoted below : "Note. - (1) There shall be a President, Vice-President Honorary Secretary who will be elected every three years by the majority of votes from amongst the members of the Board of Management The newly elected Secretary shall, thereafter nominate an Additional Secretary from amongst the members of the Executive Committee at Serial Nos. 5, 6 and 7 for the duration of his own term."
(3.) The Rules further provide that the election of the office bearers of the committee shall take place once in every three years and the old management would continue till the new office bearers are elected. It is not in dispute that the elections for the Committee of Management were held on 17-8-1992 and the defendant-revisionist was elected as Honorary Secretary. The opposite party No. 1 Nagin Chand Jain was nominated as Additional Secretary by the defendant-revisionist, in accordance with the rules vide the order dated 16-1-1993. It appears that some difference arose as a result whereof the defendant-revisionist revoked the nomination/appointment of the opposite party No. 1 as Additional Secretary vide the order dated 31-5-1993. 1 he said opposite party filed a civil Suit No. 588 of 1993 challenging the order dated 31-5-1993, and claimed the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant-applicant from interfering in the functioning of the plaintiff (opposite party No. 1) as Additional Secretary and also sought the relief for declaration that the order dated 31-5-1993 was null and void. In the said suit, an application for interim injunction was also filed and the trial court passed an order restraining the defendant-applicant from interfering with the working of the respondent No. 1 as Additional Secretary. The defendant-applicant challenged the said injunction order by filing a first Appeal From Order before this Court The main contention of the applicant was that the suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable under Section 69 read with Section 68-A (v) of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 and, therefore, the court below had illegally passed the order of injunction even without giving an opportunity for filing an objection to the defendant-applicant. The Division Bench hearing the appeal for admission finally disposed of the same at the admission stage with the direction that the appellant could approach the Court concerned by raising a preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the suit and directed the court below to consider the objection of the defendant after giving opportunity to either side. The defendant-applicant, thereafter, filed its written objection before the court below raising the issue regarding the maintainability of the suit. By means of the impugned order dated 6-9-1993, the court below has rejected the preliminary objection filed by the defendant-applicant and held that the suit before the civil court was maintainable and not barred by the provisions of U. P. Universities Act. Aggrieved against the said order the defendant-applicant has preferred the aforesaid revision before this Court. The plaintiff-respondent had filed a caveat and I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage.;