IN THE HI 112 Hardeep Singh Lord Budha So CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, of India is fi 10.10.2022 (A Division), Ludh petitioner/pla has been dism 2. along with tw plaintiff no.1 Committee M Memorandum coercion, and injunction res E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA ingh Gill Vs. a Society& Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Munish Gupta, Advocat for respondents No.1 to 8 *** PTA, J. Present petition under Art is filed seeking setting aside of 2 (Annexure P7) passed by the Ludhiana vide which the applicatio /plaintiff no.1 directing the defend dismissed. Brief facts of the case are h two others filed suit for declara o.1 is still Treasurer and plaintiffs N e Members of the defendant No.1/ dum of Understanding dated 10.01 and is therefore illegal; with the a restraining the defendants from D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5736-2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.01.2025 ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA cate ocate o 8. r Article 227 of the Constitution of the impugned order dated the learned Civil Judge (Junior ation (Annexure P4) filed by the fendants to produce the record, are that the petitioner/plaintiff claration to the effect that the ffs No.2 and 3 are the Managing o.1/Society; and that the alleged 0.01.2014 is an act of fraud and he ancillary relief of permanent rom passing any resolution in 4 SUNENA 2025.01.31 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document context to th injunction dire being run und accounts direc the funds coll schools functio 3. present appl documents. (Annexure P6) No.2 to 8 are n the categoric was dismissed 4. that in Para 1 pleaded by the 5. P3) filed by t o the said MOU dated 10.01.201 directing defendants to hand ove under the defendant No.1/Societ directing the defendants to render collected and spent on behalf of t nctioning under the Trust. In the said Suit, the petiti application dated ‘Nil’ (Annexur s. Defendants No.2, 5 and 8 fil P6) to the said application stating are not in possession of any record o oric denial of the defendants, the a ssed vide the impugned order dated Learned counsel for the pe ra 15 of the present suit (Annexur y the plaintiffs that:- “The plaintiffs have all the rights t and all the funds and receipts by plaintiff have also right to inspe being run under the. defendant relating to the Trust and its Man ascertain amount of profits earne It is submitted that in the w by the defendants in reply to the .2014; and suit for mandatory over the records of the school ciety; and suit for rendition of nder the accounts in relation to of the defendant No.1 and the etitioner/plaintiff no.1 filed the exure P4) for production of filed reply dated 29.09.2022 ting therein that the defendants ord of defendant No.1. In view of he application of the petitioner ated 10.10.2022 (Annexure P7). petitioner/plaintiff No.1 submits exure P1) it had been specifically hts to have access to the accounts ts by the defendant no.1 and the inspect the records of the school ant no.1 society and the records Managing Committee in order to arned during the period till date.” the written statement (Annexure the above said Para 15, it was 4 its lly nts the ool rds to SUNENA 2025.01.31 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document admitted by t records, and it 6. part of the de defendant-Soc production of 7. that it is the possession of it has not bee possession of extent is base filed by the r specific denia possession wo said documen petitioner/pla deserves to be 8. by the defendants that they were nd it was stated as follows:- “15. That para no.15 of the pla stated. Under the law, all the me access to the accounts and reco same was ever denied to the plain It is submitted that in view e defendants that they are in posse Society, the present application n of the said accounts, could not hav Learned counsel for the re the categoric case of the respon n of the documents sought by the p been admitted by the respondents n of the said documents. Contenti based on misreading of the writte he respondents to the main suit. enial therein by the defendants th n would not imply that the defenda ments. It is accordingly submitted /plaintiff was misconceived; and th o be dismissed. Heard. were in possession of the said e plaint has not been correctly e members of the society have, records of the society and the plaintiffs.” view of the above admission on ossession of the accounts of the tion of the petitioner seeking t have been dismissed. e respondents No.1 to 8 submits pondents that they are not in he petitioner. It is submitted that nts at any stage that they are in ention of the petitioner to this ritten statement (Annexure P3) uit. Merely because there is no ts that records are not in their endants are in possession of the tted that the application of the d therefore, the present petition 4 SUNENA 2025.01.31 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9. defendants h (Annexure P6) the document defendants, ev possession of build his own defendants’ de 10. 11. 27.01.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo A perusal of the above s have categorically stated in th P6) to the present application that ents. Further, there is no specifi , even in the written statement(An n of the documents sought by the p wn case, and he cannot rely on any s’ defence in order to prove his case In view of the above, prese Pending application(s) if an peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No ove noted facts indicates that their reply dated 29.09.2022 hat they are not in possession of ecific admission on part of the (Annexure P3), that they are in he petitioner. The plaintiff has to any admission/weakness of the case. resent petition is dismissed. if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 4 SUNENA 2025.01.31 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document