A.N. Varma, J. - (1.) THIS is an application preferred by Himalayan Institute Hospital Trust (hereinafter to be referred to as 'H.I.H.T.') through its appointed person wherein a prayer has been made to delete the name of the society i.e. H.I.H.T. from the array of the parties impleaded as respondent No. 4. In support of the averments made in this application an affidavit has been field by Shri Ganesh Kala son of late Daya Dhar Kala working as Manager with the H.I.H.T., Jolly Grant, Dehradun, Uttaranchal. According to the averments made in the application, H.I.H.T. is society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 having its registered Governing Body and Presidential Body as per approved Bye Laws which alongwith its Constitution, as acknowledged and registered with the Registrar of Societies, Dehradun. As per the list of approved and registered Governing Body as well as the Presidential Body of the Society, Mrs. Lilu Kumar i.e. respondent No. 1 and Shri M.L. Dar and the petitioner have no locus standi as they are neither members of the Governing Body or Presidential Body nor even general body of the society. Since the said society i.e. opposite party No. 4 is not represented by the Governing Body or any authority of the society as contemplated under the provisions of section 6 of the Societies Registration Act rather the same has been impleaded as respondent No. 4 through (i) Mrs. Lilu Kumar, and (ii) Lt. General M.L. Dar (Retd.) alleging them to be the members of the Presidential Body who are neither any authority nor members of the Governing Body, therefore, the same deserves to be deleted form the array of parties. A suit had been instituted being Regular Suit No. 865 of 1997 M.L. Dar and others v. Vikram Singh and others, wherein H.I.H.T. was impleaded as plaintiff No. 4 through its Presidential Body said to be duly nominated by the deceased Chairperson his holiness Swami Ram alias Shri Brij Kishore Kumar (1) Lt. General M.L. Dar (Retired), (2) Mohit Kumar son of Shri Brij Kishore Kumar alias his holiness late Dr. Swami Rama, (3) Mrs. Lilu Kumar wife of Shri Brij Kishore Kumar alias his holiness late Dr. Swami Rama. The other plaintiff's were M.L. Dar plaintiff No. 1, Mohit Kumar plaintiff No. 2 and Mrs. Lilu Kumar plaintiff No. 3.
(2.) THE prayer made in the said suit was for a decree declaring the document dated 5.11.1996 as forged, fabricated and void and all the defendants be prohibited and restrained from operating all the Bank Accounts of H.I.H.T. in any capacity whatsoever. In the said suit an application under Order I, Rule 10(2) read with section 151, C.P.C. was preferred for detention of the name of plaintiff No. 4 from the array of parties on the ground that the defendants in the said suit were members of the Presidential Body and only the Presidential Body is competent to do work related with the affairs of the institution as the said Presidential Body had been nominated by the founder President of the institute i.e. his holiness Swami Ram and since the defendants had also been accorded recognition by the registrar of Societies as presidential Body and the entire work relating to the society was being done by them and plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 neither being manners of the H.I.H.T. nor any recognition having been accorded to them and also they were not doing the work of the society in any capacity nor was there any resolution in their favour to file a suit as such the name of plaintiff No. 4 deserves to be deleted from the array of plaintiffs. The Trial Judge opined that plaintiff No. 4 had inappropriately been made a party by plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 and, therefore, directed deletion of the name of plaintiff No. 4 from the array of the parties. The application, thus, was allowed and plaintiff No. 4 H.I.H.T. was ordered to be deleted being unnecessary party. Being aggrieved against the said order, a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, filed before the High Court at Uttaranchal which was dismissed as not maintainable in view of alternative remedy being available to the petitioners under section 115 of the C.P.C. The said order of the High Court was made subject matter of challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by Shri Mohit Kumar and others. While entertaining the petition the opinion expressed by the High Court on the point of maintainability of the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was left open to question. However, no interference was made by the Apex Court with the orders of the High Court or the Trial Court that plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 could not have joined with them plaintiff No. 4, represented through themselves when that itself was the issue arising for decision. It was observed that even in the absence of plaintiff No. 4 being arrayed as party to the suit cause of action allegedly arises to plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 was capable of being decided on merits. With the said observation the petition was disposed of.
(3.) I have heard Shri Jayant Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate, for the applicant as well as Shri Mohit Kumar, who appears in person and Shri Yashovardhan Swarup, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 1.;