Dismissed

Balbir Kaur v. United Church Northern India Trust Ass. & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Jan 2010CR/7609/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a revision petition challenging an order allowing the impleadment of United Church Northern India Trust Association in a suit for possession. The court held that since the Trust's attorney was properly authorized and the previous attorney lacked authority, the revision lacked merit.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed in limine without order as to costs.

Balbir Kaur Vs United Church Northern India… — Company and Corporate | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

CR 7609 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

¶2

Decided on January 22,2010.

¶3

Balbir Kaur - Petitioner

¶4

vs.

¶5

United Church Northern India Trust Association and others

¶6

--Respondents.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

¶8

Present: Mr.ADS Sukhija,Advocate,Advocate,for the petitioner

¶9

Rakesh Kumar Jain, (Oral)

¶10

This revision petition is directed against the order passed by learned Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moga, dated 09.11.2009, whereby an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short,' CPC') by respondent No.1., has been allowed.

¶11

Present petition has been filed by plaintiff No.1. Plaintiffs have filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement of sale deed dated 12.12.2006, executed by United Church Northern India Trust Association, through Clearance Bansi Lal, in respect of land measuring 3 kanals 18 marlas being 703/ 1521 share out of 8 kanals 9 marlas bearing khasra No. 413 (8-9), Khatauni No.2900, Khewat No, 2250

¶12

CR 7609 of 2009

¶13

-2-

¶14

of Jamabandi 2002-2003 of Moga Mehla Singh for a consideration of Rs.20 lacs, out of which Rs.15 lacs have already been paid as earnest money or in the alternative, a suit for recovery of Rs.20 lacs which would include Rs.15 lacs as earnest money and Rs.5 lacs towards damages along-with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of its payment till date of its realization, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the property in dispute or rejecting/ dispossessing them forcibly or alienating the property in dispute in any manner except to the plaintiff.

¶15

In the suit, defendant No.1. filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C to be impleaded as defendant No.3, on the ground that he has been duly appointed as an attorney by United Church Northern India Trust Association, Registration No.2912 of 1938-39, having its registered office at Omega Building 19 August Kranti Marg, Mumbai through attorney Issac and the property in dispute is being squandered away by defendant No.1. (Clearance Bansi Lal) in collusion with the plaintiffs to the detriment of United Church Northern India Trust Association, which is a religious institution working for the benefit and education of minority Christian population.

¶16

The said application has been allowed by learned Court below finding prima facie that Clearance Bansi Lal, who claims himself to be an attorney of United Church Northern India Trust Association, has not been declared to be a competent person as an attorney of United Church Northern India Trust Association on the basis of an order of this Court dated 29.7.2004 passed in RSA No. 4132 of 2002, in which it has been held that

¶17

CR 7609 of 2009

¶18

-3-

¶19

Bansi Lal has no power to transfer the property of UCNITA. Moreover, it was found that Bansi Lal has been proceeded against ex-parte as he did not appear in Court despite service, which means that he is not looking after the interest of the minority religious institution, though as an attorney, he is duty bound to appear before the Court.

¶20

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 09.11.2009 on the ground that no authority has been conferred upon Issac Masih by the Church for the purpose of contesting the suit.

¶21

On 21 December,2009, learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to place on record Special Power of Attorney filed by Issac before the Court below which has been filed with CM No.1539-CII of 2010, and is taken on record and it has been found that Issac Masih has been duly authorised by the United Church Northern India Trust Association.

¶22

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that there is no error in the order of learned Court below as Clearance Bansi Lal has been found to be not competent as an attorney of United Church Northern India Trust Association in an order dated 29.7.2004 passed by this Court in RSA No.4132 of 2002 and despite service, he is not appearing before the Court below.

¶23

In view of the above, I find that in order to effectively adjudicate the dispute between the parties, presence of respondent No.1United Church Northern India Trust Association, through Issac Masih is required and for that matter, the present petition is found to be without any CR 7609 of 2009 -4-

¶24

merit and is hereby dismissed in limine, though without any order as to

¶25

costs.

¶26

January 22,2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge

Balbir Kaur v. United Church Northern India Trust Ass. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balbir Kaur v. United Church Northern India Trust Ass. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kirpal Singh Vs Raj Kumar and Ors.

Surinder Kumar Vs Garib Dass and Ors.

Ranjit Singh Vs Janki Dass Jain

M/S Sadashiv Print Packs Works Ltd. Vs State Bank of India and Ors..

Darshan Singh Vs Iqbal Singh

Satpal Singh Vs Daljit Kaur and Ors.