SREE JAIN SETAMBAR TERAPANTHI VID (S) versus PHUNDAN SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 498 · Decided: 09-02-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SREE JAIN SETAMBAR TERAPANTHI VID (S) 
). 
v. 
~ 
PHUNDAN SINGH AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 9, 1999 
B 
[K.T. THOMAS AND S.S. MOHAMED QUADRI, JJ.] 
,> 
Code of Civil Procedure 1908, Ss. 104, 107 r/w Order XLllI Rule I (r), 
Order XXXIX Rule I-Powers of appellate court to inteif ere with order grant-
ing temporary injunction-Suit by plaintiff Society for declaration against 
c erstwhile members and farmer employee of school run by it-Trial Court after 
recording finding of prima f acie satisfaction on merits granted temporary in-
junction restraining respondents from inteif ering with functioning of 
school-High Court in appeal setting aside order ignoring findings recorded 
by trial court and appointing two joint administrators to manage society and 
D 
schools in place of Society's Managing Committee-Held, Order of High Court 
unsustainable; it could not have set aside the order of trial court and ousted 
Managing Committee from management of Society without discussing the 
material on record and recording a contrary finding matter remitted to High 
Court for disposal afresh. 
E 
The appellant ('Society') in 1993 appointed PS, Respondent No. 1, 
as Headmaster of the Boys School run by it. ·The executive committee of 
the Society which assumed charge in 1994 terminated the membership of 
Respondents 2, 4 and 6 in July, 1996 on the allegation that they were 
indulging in activities harmful to the Society. On April 26, 1997 the services 
F 
of PS were terminated on the ground that he joined the camp of the 
expelled members and that he had trespassed criminally in the Boys 
School premises. 
.. 
The Society thereafter filed a civil suit against PS and the respon-
dents for a declaration that PS ceased to be the Headmaster to Boys 
G School; that Respondent 2 and 4 to 6 creased to be the members of the 
Society. It also sought temporary injunction restraining them from enter-
ing into .and causing any interference in the functioning of the school. 
The Trial Court granted the temporary injunction sought for by the 
Society. In an appeal filed by the respondents, a Division Bench of the 
H Calcutta High Court set aside the order of injunction and appointed two 
498 
SREEJAINSETAMBAR TERAPANTHIVID(S)v. P.SINGH 
499 
~ 
joint administrators in place of Society's Managing Committee to manage A 
-
the society and its schools. The Society appealed to this Court by special 
leave. 
During the hearing of the appeal in this Court, all the counsel 
appearing for the parties pleaded that till the matter is decided afresh by 
the High Court, the order, appointing the two joint administrators may B 
not be disturbed. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The order of the High Court setting aside the order of the c 
trial court is unsustainable. It is one thing to conclude that the trial court 
has not recorded its prima f acie satisfaction on merits but granted the 
temporary injunction and it is another thing to hold that trial court has 
gone wrong in recording prima f acie satisfaction on the basis of the 
material on record either because it has not considered the relevant 
material or because it has erroneously reached the finding or conclusion D 
on the facts established. In the first situation, the appellate court will be 
justified in upsetting the order under appeal even without going into the 
merits of the case but in the second eventuality, it cannot set aside the 
impugned order without discussing the material on record and recording 
a contrary finding. [503-F-G] 
E 
1.2. Ousting the Managing Committee from the management of the 
society and the schools run by it and appointing joint administrators, 
pending disposal of the appeal by the High Court, would be neither legal 
nor just and proper. [506-D] 
1.3. The case is remitted to the High Court for disposal of the appeal 
F 
afresh in accordance with law. [506-F] 
Municipal Board, Pratabgarh v. Mahendra Singh Chawla, [1982) 3 
SCC 331; Chandra Bansi Singh v. State of Bihar, [1984) 4 SCC 316 and 
Sadhuram Bansal v. Putin Behari Sarkar, [1984) 3. SCC 410, distinguished. G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 730 of 
... 
1999 . 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.9.98 of the Calcutta High 
Court in F.M.A.T. No. 438 of 1998. 
H 
500 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1999] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
D.P. Gupta, Jaideep Gupta, Rana Mukherjee, Mrs. Sumita Mukher-
). 
jee and Mrs. Manju Manot for the Appellant. 
~ 
R.k. Jain, Piyusli Kanti Roy and Pranab Kumar Mullick for the 
Respon
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.