Delhi District Court
Shri J. P. Srivastava vs Society For Ecological Management Of ... on 19 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI SINGH
ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC, SOUTH
DISTRICT COURTS COMPLEX, SAKET, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
Suit no. 109/2023
CNR No.DLST03-000324-2023
Sh. J.P. Srivastava
S/o Sh. K.N. Srivastava,
R/o 132B, Panchsheel Park,
New Delhi-110017
...............Plaintiff
Versus
Society for Ecological Management
of Waste Lands and Habitats.
Regd. Office: B-11, Pocket B,
Gangotri Enclave, Alaknanda,
New Delhi-110019
(Through its secretary CDR. K.S Brar)
Also at:
Commandar K.S. Brar
Secretary
Society for Ecological Management
of Waste Lands and Habitats.
C-9/9089, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.
.......Defendant
Date of Institution : 10.02.2023
Date of Pronouncement : 19.03.2025
Decision : Dismissed.
CS SCJ No. 109 of 2023
SHRI J.P. SRIVASTAVA VS. SOCIETY FOR ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT OF WASTE LANDS AND HABITATS Pages 1 of 6
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.03.19
16:13:09
+0530
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
EX PARTE JUDGMENT
1.Succinctly, the case of the plaintiff is that he has been the member of defendant society which is registered under the Society's Registration Act, 1860 vide registration no. S/20811 of 1990. As per the plaintiff, he applied for the membership of the defendant society which was accepted by the defendant and it was informed to him that the society was allocated zonal rights for zone L & M, Khera Dhumaspur Village, Post Office Anangpur, District Faridabad, Haryana, over the land purchased by it. The zones were allocated to members for development and upgradation according to the aims and objectives of the society and as per the plaintiff, one of the said zone was given to him. The plaintiff has explained that earlier, certain people representing themselves from the defendant society threatened the allocation of the zone in the favour of the plaintiff due to which the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the society and vide order dated 26.10.2009, the defendant society was restrained from interfering in any manner in the peaceful enjoyment of the status and right of the plaintiff as a member of the defendant society. The plaintiff submits that the suit was pending before Ld. CJ-01, South and the last known date of hearing in his knowledge was 28.02.2011 but due to old age and ill health, he could not follow up the developments in the case and also because, order dated 26.10.2009 does not bear any case number, he was unable to obtain the record of the case. He further submits that in the year 2013, a final order was passed in a connected matter bearing no. 170A/2011 titled 'Joginder Singh Vs. Society for Ecological Management of Waste Lands and Habitats' on 23.08.2013 and he believes that in his case also, a similar order was passed. The plaintiff submits that presently, he is not aware of the whereabouts of the defendant society and the address furnished in the suit is the last known address CS SCJ No. 109 of 2023 SHRI J.P. SRIVASTAVA VS. SOCIETY FOR ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT OF WASTE LANDS AND HABITATS Pages 2 of 6 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.19 16:13:15 +0530 in his knowledge and in the month of November 2022, he made an inquiry and got to know that the record of the society is not available with the Registrar of Societies and the society is not functioning from the last known address. The plaintiff alleges that when the zone was alloted to him, no document was provided by the defendant society towards ownership and government approval and the plaintiff believes that the same was not done as the defendant society has no proof for these documents and thus, the plaintiff is not interested in continuing with the membership of the society and wants to withdraw his name from the defendant society and therefore, prays that a decree of declaration be passed in his favour declaring that he is no longer a member of the society, he has no interest in the land situated at Khera Dhumaspur, Faridabad and a permanent injunction be also issued against the defendant society restraining them from involving the plaintiff in the activities of the society.
2. For cause of action, the plaintiff explained that it last arose when he came to know that the defendant society has no documents qua the ownership of the zones and had no government approval and is still continuing. For territorial jurisdiction, the plaintiff submits that the society is registered at Delhi and therefore, is within the jurisdiction of this Court.
3. Summons of the suit were sent to the defendant but they were received back unserved. Eventually, on 30.04.2024, application u/o 5 Rule 20 CPC filed by the plaintiff was allowed and substituted service was effected on 29.05.2024. On 03.07.2024, the defendant society was proceeded ex-parte as despite publication and affixation, no one appeared.
4. In ex-parte evidence, plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and relied upon his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex.PW1/A. He further relied upon the following documents:-CS SCJ No. 109 of 2023
SHRI J.P. SRIVASTAVA VS. SOCIETY FOR ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT OF WASTE LANDS AND HABITATS Pages 3 of 6 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.19 16:13:21 +0530
a) Copy of certificate of registration no. S/20811 of 1990 of Society for Ecological Management of Wastelands and Habitats issued by Registrar of Societies, Mark PW1/1.
b) Copy of MoA and Rules and regulations of Society for Ecological Management of Wastelands and Habitats issued by Registrar of Societies, Mark PW1/2.
c) Copy of order dated 26.10.2019 of Patiala House Court, Mark PW1/3.
d) Copy of order dated 23.08.2013 in suit bearing no.170A/2011, Mark PW1/4.
5. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff and plaintiff closed his evidence on 12.12.2024. During ex-parte final arguments, the Ld. counsel reiterated the allegations made in the plaint and evidence by way of affidavit. I have heard the ex-parte arguments on behalf of the plaintiff and I have also perused the record carefully. In the present case, the plaintiff prays for declaration to remove his name as a member from the defendant society and in order to prove that he was the member, he relied upon Mark PW1/1, Mark PW1/2 and Mark PW1/3. All these documents are copies of certified copy but since the original are documents of which certified copies are permissible and since the case of the plaintiff has gone unchallenged, no objection exists against the admissibility of these documents. Perusal of these documents would show that the defendant society was registered vide registration no. S/20811 of 1990 and the plaintiff is reflected as one of the member. In Mark PW1/3, interim relief was granted to the plaintiff against the defendant and the defendant society was restrained from interfering in the peaceful enjoyment of the status and right of plaintiff as member of the defendant society till the pendency of the suit. The plaintiff has alleged that the suit number is not mentioned in the said order and due to his old age, he could not keep a track of the dates of hearing and therefore, he could not file the details of the suit. The submission made on behalf of the plaintiff cannot be entertained CS SCJ No. 109 of 2023 SHRI J.P. SRIVASTAVA VS. SOCIETY FOR ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT OF WASTE LANDS AND HABITATS Pages 4 of 6 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
SINGH SINGH 2025.03.19 16:13:26 +0530 as the said order was passed in a suit filed by the plaintiff and therefore, he himself would be in the knowledge of the details of the case and in possession of the documents. The plaintiff is the master of his case and it is his duty to file all the documents relevant for the adjudication of the case. Further, this would not be the only order passed in the case and it was the duty of the plaintiff to file the complete record of the case along with the final order in order for this Court to ascertain if his status as a member of the defendant society was confirmed by any Court of Law.
6. Next, the plaintiff is relying on Mark PW1/4 i.e. the copy of order dated 24.02.2011 passed by Ld. CJ-01, in suit no. 170A of 2011. The plaintiff submits that it was a connected case and he believes that in the suit filed by him before Ld. CJ-01 in which order dated 26.10.2009 was passed, similar relief would have been granted. Again, the said submission belies logic as the suit filed by the plaintiff in suit no. 170A/2011 was for a right of the plaintiff which was in personam and it cannot be presumed that the case of the plaintiff would have been decided on the same lines. Even otherwise, the said document is not a certified copy of the order of the concerned Court and therefore, the document itself is inadmissible.
7. Moving on to the remaining evidence, in Mark PW1/2, though the name of the plaintiff is reflected as the member of the society but the said document was filed before the Court on 07.05.2012, as visible from the endorsement made at the top of the document. Moreover, the rules of membership are also explained in detail in the document and as per Rule 3 (4) and Rule 5 (3) and Rule 5A, conditions are specified on which a member may cease to become a member. The plaintiff has said that he could not find the record of the society with the Registrar of Society but no document is placed on record which could show that any inquiry was made by the plaintiff regarding the same and the document CS SCJ No. 109 of 2023 SHRI J.P. SRIVASTAVA VS. SOCIETY FOR ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT OF WASTE LANDS AND HABITATS Pages 5 of 6 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.19 16:13:33 +0530 relied upon is the Memorandum of Association filed in the year 2012. Also, the plaintiff has not clarified or filed any document to show if he complied with Rule 3(4) of Rules and Regulations of the defendant society. Even though the case of the plaintiff is uncontraverted yet, for reasons best known to him, he has not placed any document on record to prove the averments made by him. The entire case of the plaintiff is based on conjectures and in such circumstance, it cannot be observed by this Court if the plaintiff is currently also the member of the defendant society and entitled for relief of declaration or injunction cannot be granted, as prayed for.
8. In view of the above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff fails and is accordingly dismissed and disposed off. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. Plaintiff to bear the cost of the suit.
9. File be consigned to the record room after indexing and pagination.
Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.19 16:13:40 +0530 Announced in the open Court (SHILPI SINGH) on 19.03.2025 ACJ-CCJ-ARC/South, Saket Court/Delhi CS SCJ No. 109 of 2023 SHRI J.P. SRIVASTAVA VS. SOCIETY FOR ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT OF WASTE LANDS AND HABITATS Pages 6 of 6