LAWS(DLH)-2021-7-182

SUNIL KUMAR VAID Vs. GENERAL MOHYAL SABHA

Decided On July 22, 2021
SUNIL KUMAR VAID Appellant
V/S
General Mohyal Sabha Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cm APPL. 21657/2021 (Exemption)

(2.) Mr. Achin Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Trial Court has fixed the case for hearing on 26th July, 2021 despite having moved an early hearing application, ignoring the plea of the petitioner/plaintiff that the ballot papers could be distributed on that day. The learned counsel has relied on the report submitted by an earlier Election Observer on 16th September, 2015 (Annexure P-21), where an observation had been made that the ballot papers were not properly issued by the then Election Committee and the same situation is likely to prevail now. The learned counsel submitted that this is the reason why an application had been moved seeking appointment of an Election Observer, but the learned Trial Court did not look into the matter in the right perspective. Hence it was prayed that the order dated 15th July, 2021 be set aside and this Court appoint a Court Observer to supervise, monitor and conduct the elections of the Respondent No.1/Society.

(3.) Mr. Devadutta Kamat, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.1/Society has submitted that this was the third occasion when the petitioner/plaintiff has come before this court with the same prayer i.e., for appointment of a Court Observer to conduct the elections. The first order was dated 3rd March, 2021 (Annexure P-6) when the petitioner/plaintiff sought leave to withdraw the writ petition. The second one is dated 23rd March, 2021 (Annexure P-12) when once again the petitioner/plaintiff sought leave to withdraw the petition. Again, despite the fact that the application for appointment of an Observer is to be heard by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner/plaintiff has come before this court. The learned Senior Counsel has also pointed out that vide the impugned order, the learned Trial Court had also fixed for consideration an application moved under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, moved by the respondent No.1, who is the defendant No.1 before the learned Trial Court. The learned Senior Counsel urged that the present petition be dismissed with heavy costs.