- (1.) Present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order dated 9.4.2014 passed by Additional Civil Judge [Senior Division], Jagadhri whereby application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of counter-claim filed by the plaintiff [petitioner herein] was dismissed.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order dated 9.4.2014, submitted that in the main suit, an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint was filed on account of Haryana Registration and Regulation of the Society Act, 2012 [hereinafter referred to as "the 2012 Act". The petitioner replied to the said application that the 2012 Act was not applicable to the case in hand. As per the petitioner, the defendants changed the nature of trust deed in order to grab the property of the Trust and that has been done during the pendency of the suit. The petitioner wanted to incorporate the subsequent developments by way of amendment of his counter-claim to the following effect:- "(i). That sub para (x) of para No. 2 of Counter Claim will be added as under:- "and for declaration that the impugned trust deed alleged to have been registered under Haryana Registration and regulation of the Society Act, 2012 dated 14.06.2013 and its registration certificate obtained by defendants during the pendency of the case, which came to notice of the plaintiff is absolutely wrong, illegal, null and void and not operative on the right of the plaintiff & Trust and is not tenable in the eyes of law" (ii). That para No. 15(a) in counter claim filed by the plaintiff will be inserted as under :- "That during pendency of the case, recently in 2013, defendants in connivance with alleged trustees changed trust deed with malafide intention with a view to grab the property of the trust illegally and unauthorizedly. In fact the defendants or any alleged trustees have absolutely no right to change the terms and condition of the trust founded by Sant Nischal Singh Ji in the year 1966 and on perusal of the alleged trust deed which has been produced by the defendant, it is clear that the defendants have changed all the aims and objects of the trust with a view to earn the money. Not only this, under the heading of word condition clause (v), it is clearly mentioned that if upon winding up or dissolution of society there remains after satisfaction of debts of liability or any provision whatsoever, same shall not be paid or distributed to the members of the society but the same be given or transferred to other institution having object similar to object of the society to be determined by the member of the society at or before the time of dissolution. This change itself shows that the alleged trustees including defendants are clearly bent upon to transfer the properties to some other society which was never intended by the founder of the trust who did not use the word society in original trust deed and he only founded the trust and the alleged properties cannot be transferred to the alleged society. Even otherwise, the trust cannot be registered under the Haryana Registration and Regulation of the Society Act, 2012. The trust is an independent body and same cannot be registered Haryana Registration and Regulation of the Society Act, 2012. The preamble of the above said act says that to consolidate the law relating to the registration and regulation of Society in State of Haryana promoting art, fine art support, religion, science, any public or charitable purpose and for matter connecting therewith. From the reading of this Act, it is clear that trust cannot be registered as a society and even otherwise, society has been given independent statutory status and consequently the properties alleged to be vest in the trust cannot be transferred to the society alleged to have been registered under the above said Act without registered transfer deed from Sub Registrar under Indian Registration Act. The impugned registration certificate dt: 14.06.2013 and memorandum rules and regulation of association Sant Nischal Singh trust registered Yamunanagar [Amendmented](sic) are absoutely wrong, illegal, null and void, non-operative."
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the proposed amendment has become essential. More so, the plaintiff has filed a separate suit challenging the amendment in the trust deed of the year 1966 and the proposed amendments are essential and the application be allowed.;