Surinder Singh, J. - (1.) THIS Revision Petition is absolutely misconceived. It is not disputed that H.B. Joshi petitioner filed a suit before the trial Court against the Election Dispute Committee, Trained Nurses Association of India, New Delhi, and five others, for a declaration to the effect that the decision of the said Committee dated March 24, 1977, which went against the petitioner, was null, void, illegal and without jurisdiction as the petitioner had been duly elected as Vice President of the Trained Nurses Association of India A further prayer was made for the issue of injunction to the Executive Committee not to hold its meeting scheduled to be held on April 4, 1977 in which the election of respondents Nos. 6 and 7 was to be approved. The suit was contested by the respondents on various grounds. In fact, in their written statement, as many as four preliminary objections both on legal as well as factual aspect of the case were raised. In regard to the allegations on merits, some of the factual allegations were admitted while the remaining were denied. It appears that with a view to avoid the ordeal of contest, the petitioner put in an application under Order XII, Rule 6, read with section 151. Code of Civil Procedure, before the trial Court that since one of the allegations made by the plaintiff petitioner that the election had been set aside without notice to him was admitted in the written statement, his suit should be decreed forthwith without going into other aspects of the case. This prayer was declined by the trial Court and it is against the said decision that the present Revision Petition had been filed.
(2.) THERE is no gain saying that the main relief claimed by the petitioner in his suit was the declaration that the decision of the Election Dispute Committee, dated March 24, 1977, is null, void, illegal and without jurisdiction. This claim was never accepted by the respondents in their written statement. In regard to the non issue of notice to the petitioner by the Election Dispute Committee, it was asserted that the petitioner was not a necessary party and in any case his absence did not result in the decision of the Committee being illegal and without jurisdiction. Similarly, there were other controversial points involved in the case, one of the important paints being the very jurisdiction of the trial Court to try the suit. In face of these objections and controversies the trial Court was quite justified in not decreeing the suit under Order XII, rule 6 of the Code and its decision is affirmed. The Revision Petition is dismissed. The parties, through their counsel have been directed to appear before the trial Court on October 3, 1978, for further proceedings.;