- (1.) THIS appeal is by the plaintiffs and it is against a decision of the Lower Appellate Court dismissing the plaintiffs' suit in an appeal which was filed by the plaintiffs against an order passed by the trial court holding that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit upon the allegations made in the plaint.
(2.) THE plaintiffs instituted the suit for a declaration that the defendant nos. 2 to 13 were not entitled to act as the members of the Managing Committee of M/s. Rotary Village Co-operative multipurpose Society Ltd. and for an injunction restraining the defendants from acting as such. A few days after the institution of the suit the plaintiffs filed an application under order 40 Rule 1 read with S. 151 of the code of Civil Procedure and for appointment of ad-interim Receiver in respect of the management of the defendant No. 1, co-operative Society. On this application the trial Court appointed an ad-interim receiver on the 4th February, 1977. On the very next day an application was filed by the defendants No. 1, 3, 5, 9 and 11 for stay of the aforesaid order for appointment of Receiver. On 7th February, 1977 a learned Advocate was appointed Receiver and she was directed to take possession of all properties and the books of accounts of the defendant No. 1, Co-operative society. On the same day when the defendant's application for stay of the order of appointment of Receiver was put up it was contended on behalf of the defendants that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and as such the order for appointment of receiver should be stayed. Ultimately, on the 15th February, 1977 the learned munsif took up the defendants' petition for stay and heard the parties on the point whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies act, 1973. The learned Munsif came to the conclusion that the count had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute involved in the suit, and accordingly he held that the defendants' petition for stay of the order of appointment of Receiver should succeed. Before the question of jurisdiction of Court was decided the plaintiffs had filed an application for amendment of the plaint. The learned munsif by the same order directed the said petition to be put up on a subsequent date after a copy of the petition was served upon the contesting defendants. From the copies of the order-sheet of the trial Court which was handed up to us by the learned Advocate for the respondents it appears quite clearly that the suit was kept pending by the learned munsif.
(3.) AGAINST the aforesaid order of the trial Court passed on the 15th February, 1977 holding that the defendants' application for stay of appointment of Receiver should succeed on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit the plaintiffs preferred an appeal, being misc. Appeal No. 154 of 1977 of the 10th Court of the Additional district Judge, Alipore. The learned judge by his judgment and order, dated april 29, 1977 affirmed the decision of the trial Court that the defendants' stay application should succeed but at the same time he dismissed the suit with costs. The present Second Appeal has been preferred against the said decision of the lower appellate Court.;