news details |
|
|
| Three-decade-old membership dispute reduced to academic exercise: HC | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Oct 27: Observing that courts cannot continue adjudicating disputes that have lost their relevance with the passage of time, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a civil second appeal involving Dogri Sanstha, Jammu, holding that a three-decade-old membership dispute had become infructuous and its continuation would merely amount to an academic exercise.
Justice Shahzad Azeem, while deciding Civil Second Appeal No. 8/2014, observed that no effective or executable relief could survive in a dispute concerning renewal of membership for the period 1993-1996, which had expired more than three decades ago.
The appeal was filed by the President and General Secretary of Dogri Sanstha, Karan Nagar, Jammu, challenging the judgment and decree dated November 29, 2013, passed by the First Additional District Judge, Jammu, whereby the trial court's judgment dated May 14, 2001, dismissing the membership renewal suit was reversed.
The controversy originated when N.D. Jamwal and Mohan Singh sought renewal of their membership of Dogri Sanstha for a further period of three years. The trial court dismissed their suit, holding that they were not entitled to renewal of membership as their activities were considered prejudicial to the interests of the society.
However, the first appellate court reversed the trial court's findings in 2013 and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, prompting Dogri Sanstha to approach the High Court.
The second appeal was admitted on March 4, 2014, on several substantial questions of law, including whether membership of a registered society could be claimed as a matter of right contrary to its memorandum of association and whether a civil court could direct continuing membership despite the society's constitution prescribing a fixed tenure.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Rahul Pant, assisted by Advocate Dhruv Pant, appeared for Dogri Sanstha, while Advocate Amarveer Manhas represented the respondents.
Upon examining the controversy, the High Court noticed that the disputed membership period of 1993-1996 had expired nearly 17 years before the first appellate court delivered its judgment in 2013.
Consequently, the Court framed an additional substantial question of law on October 21, 2026, regarding whether the first appellate court's judgment had become incapable of execution and whether the second appeal had become infructuous due to the passage of time.
Justice Azeem observed that the dispute had ceased to involve any live controversy capable of yielding effective judicial relief.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in J.M. Biswas versus N.K. Bhattacharjee and Others, wherein the Apex Court emphasised that litigation loses its relevance when subsequent developments and the passage of time render the original controversy meaningless.
The High Court observed that continuing proceedings over an expired membership period would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the decree concerning the historical period could no longer be practically executed.
The Court further held that examining the correctness of the trial court's findings or their reversal by the first appellate court was unnecessary when no executable relief survived.
Accordingly, Justice Shahzad Azeem dismissed the civil second appeal as infructuous on account of the passage of time.
The Court, however, clarified that dismissal of the appeal would not prejudice the rights, if any, of the parties concerning any subsequent membership period, nor would the findings recorded by the courts below be treated as binding for all future purposes.
The parties were directed to bear their own costs. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
