SHIVI CHOPRA & ORS. vs REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES & ORS.
$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5882/2024 & CM APPL. 24279/2024
SHIVI CHOPRA & ORS. ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Salman Khurshid, Senior Advocate with Ms. Azra Rehman, Ms. Harita Mehta, Advocates
versus
REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
& ORS. ….. Respondent
Through: Ms. Neeta Bahl, Advocate for R-3
Mr. Udit Malik, ASC (Civil), GNCTD with Mr. Vishal Chanda, Advocate
% Date of Decision: 26th April, 2024
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 22nd September 2023 (impugned order) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Financial Commissioner) in Revision Petition No. 390/2010 (revision petition) whereby the Financial Commissioner dismissed the application no. 175/2022 filed for restoration of the revision petition (restoration application).
1.1. The revision petition was dismissed for non-pursuance by the Financial Commissioner on 15th September, 2022 due to the failure of the Petitioners to comply with the directions for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner No. 1 therein despite grant of several opportunities.
1.2. The Petitioners thereafter, filed a restoration application on 13th October, 2022, however, the same as well has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 22nd September, 2023, as the Financial Commissioner recorded that no sufficient explanation has been offered for the willful non-compliance of the directions dated 05th August, 2011 and 15th November, 2012 despite grant of several opportunities over ten years.
2. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioners states that Respondent No. 3, Society allotted Plot No. 124 measuring 291.7 sq. yds to the predecessor of the Petitioners herein i.e. late Smt. Krishna Chopra. However, thereafter Respondent no.3, Society vide resolution nos. 575 and 604 dated 29th August 1976 and 28th August 1977 respectively declared late Smt. Krishna Chopra as a defaulter. He states that the order of expulsion was confirmed by the Registrar Cooperative Societies (RCS) vide letter dated 11th March 1980 and consequently vide letter dated 19th March 1980, Respondent no. 3, Society conveyed the cancellation of membership to late Smt. Krishna Chopra.
2.1. He states as Smt. Krishna Chopra expired on 10th April 1981 and the cancellation letter dated 19th March 1980 was challenged by her husband, late Sh. Suraj Prakash Chopra by way of a civil suit. He states that the suit was filed for declaring the expulsion of Late Smt. Krishna Chopra from the membership of Respondent No. 3, Society as illegal and injunction directing the defendants therein to enroll late Sh. Suraj Prakash Chopra as a member of the Society in place of late Smt. Krishna Chopra. He states that suit no. 1078/06/81 (Civil Court) was filed on 29th October 1981.
2.2. He states that the Civil Court vide order dated 18th October, 2010 dismissed the suit filed in view of the bar of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 60 of the Delhi Cooperative Society Act, 1972 (DCS Act of 1972) and granted liberty to the plaintiff to avail it statutory remedy against the order dated 11th March, 1980 passed by the RCS before the concerned authority under the DCS Act of 1972.
2.3. He states that accordingly, on 18th November 2010, revision petition was filed before the Financial Commissioner under Section 80 of DCS Act of 1972 impugning the RCSs order dated 11th March 1980 and other orders through which membership of late Smt. Krishna Chopra was cancelled. He states that the revision petition was filed by the legal heirs of late Smt. Krishna Chopra and one of her sons was Mr. Sarvesh Chopra as petitioner no. 1 therein.
2.4. He states that due to the death of Mr. Sarvesh Chopra, an application under Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC, 1908 was filed on 1st August 2011 to bring the legal representatives of late Sarvesh Chopra on record. He states that the said application was allowed by Financial Commissioner on 15th November, 2012 with the direction to the Petitioners to file the Amended Memo of Parties with the signatures of all Petitioners therein.
2.5. He states that it is a matter of regret that the said direction of the Financial Commissioner was not complied by the Petitioners until 15th September, 2022 for eleven years. He states that initially between 2014-2018, settlement talks were ongoing between the parties and thereafter between 2018-2020, the matter got adjourned multiple times due to paucity of time and/or adjournments sought by parties. He states that thereafter from 2020-2022, the matter could not be heard properly, nor steps could be taken by the Petitioners due to COVID-19.
2.6. He states that directions issued by Financial Commissioner on 08th February, 2022 and 17th May 2022 to bring all the legal representatives of petitioners on record with an affidavit and file an Amended Memo of Parties could not be complied with due to reasons beyond the control of the Petitioners. He states that the Counsel for the Petitioners had contracted Covid-19 and was unable to appear on 15th September 2022 and therefore, the junior counsel sought for an adjournment and last opportunity to file the amended memo of parties, however, the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 15th September 2022 dismissed the revision petition on ground of non-pursuance.
2.7. He states that Petitioners herein, thereafter, filed the restoration application to restore the revision petition on 13th October 2022. However, vide impugned order Financial Commissioner dismissed the restoration application. He states that however in the interest of justice, the delay and default in prosecuting the revision petition be condoned and the proceedings before the Financial Commissioner be restored.
3. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 who appears on advance notice states that the Petitioners have been grossly negligent in prosecuting the proceedings before the Financial Commissioner and their failure to comply with the directions dated 15th November, 2012 for ten years justifies the dismissal of the revision petition vide order dated 15th September, 2022. She states that the allotment in favour of late Smt. Krishna Chopra stood cancelled by the Society in 1980 after following due process of law and the present claim seeking to pursue the said allotment after forty years is barred by limitation.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The lackadaisical approach exhibited by the Petitioners in pursuing the revision petition before the Financial Commissioner is glaring. The impugned order dated 22nd September, 2023 records that at least thirteen opportunities were granted to the Petitioners to comply with the order dated 15th November, 2012, over ten years. The order dated 15th November, 2012 was innocuous, inasmuch as, the Petitioners were directed to file on record the amended memo of parties for bringing on record the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner no. 1 therein. The step to be taken was not onerous on the Petitioners, however, it was crucial and without taking the said step, the proceedings before the Financial Commissioner could not have continued.
6. The failure of the Petitioners to take steps to comply with the order dated 15th November, 2012 rightfully resulted in the dismissal of the revision petition vide order dated 15th September, 2022. The Petitioners have been grossly negligent and therefore, the revision petition has been rightly dismissed for non-pursuance. Pertinently, the order dated 15th September, 2022 dismissing the revision petition has not been impugned in the present writ petition.
7. For the same reason, the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 22nd September, 2023 (impugned order) dismissing the restoration application is also well-reasoned. The details recorded in the impugned order shows the callous approach of the Petitioners in conducting the revision petition. We therefore find no grounds for exercising our discretionary jurisdiction for interfering in the impugned order which records detailed findings on the negligent conduct of the Petitioners.
8. Even on merits, we may note that late Smt. Krishna Chopra had made payment of Rs. 15,726/- towards land premium and share money, which was returned to her by the Society on 19th March, 1980, while communicating the cancellation of her membership. The receipt of the cheque and the letter is admitted by the Petitioners. The expulsion of late Smt. Krishna Chopra from her membership was confirmed by the RCS vide letter dated 11th March, 1980.
9. The challenge laid to the said expulsion dated 11th March, 1980 before the Financial Commissioner in the year 2010 (after thirty years) and the gross negligence exhibited in prosecuting the said revision petition from 2011 to 2023 disentitles the Petitioners from maintaining the claim. The claim of the Petitioners has become barred by delay and laches.
10. Even the present writ petition impugning the Financial Commissioners order dated 22nd September, 2023 has been filed after an inexplicable delay of eight months in April, 2024. The Petitioners have no real and subsisting interest in the membership and are speculating in this litigation for a windfall. The equitable and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked at the behest of the defaulting Petitioners.
11. Before concluding that we may note in the grounds, it is alleged that the Amended Memo of Parties1 was filed by the Petitioners on 13th February, 2013 and therefore directions dated 15th November, 2012 stood complied with. The said averment in the petition is contrary to the contents of the restoration application dated 13th October, 2022 wherein the Petitioners admitted the non-compliance of the order dated 15th November, 2012. The Financial Commissioner in the impugned order has unambiguously observed that the Commissioners office record does not disclose any compliance. The said Annexure P-17 is an unsigned document and is not a certified copy of the Commissioners record. We are, therefore, not inclined to accept this new plea raised in the petition which is contrary to the record of the Financial Commissioner. This contention was fairly not pressed by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner.
12. We, therefore, find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed along with pending applications.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
APRIL 26, 2024/hp/ms
1 Annexure P-17
—————
————————————————————
—————
————————————————————
W.P.(C) 5882/2024 Page 6 of 7