M.K.MARATTUKALAM Vs. A.P.VELAYUDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE subject matter of these appeals and writ petition is one and the same. Therefore, they are taken up for decision by this common judgment.

(2.) THE appellant in MFA 5541/2012 was the President of Bangalore Club for the year 2011-12, his term of office came to end on 24.06.2012 and he quit the office on 24.06.2012. Respondents 1 to 3 are the members and respondent No.5 was the Vice President of Bangalore Club. Respondents No.1 to 4 had instituted O.S.No.3372/2012 against respondent No.5 namely Mr.Feroze Sattar Sait, Vice President of Bangalore Club interalia contending that appellant as a President had committed several acts of omission and commission leading to an overwhelming disturbance of the peace and harmony of the club; he had misused his office and authority in the club to settle the personal scores and had shown scant respect for the rules and Bye-laws of the club; he had resorted to suspension of members, victimisation of applicants for membership and guests in the club. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.3372/2012 had sought for following reliefs:

(3.) THE learned trial judge having recorded this submission, instead of dismissing the application for grant of temporary injunction has granted temporary mandatory injunction, directing defendant to convene Extra-ordinary general meeting as per the requisition dated 09.05.2012 by following the rules of Club. It is seen from the order impugned in MFA 5541/2012 and W.P.No.17767/2012, the learned trial judge had dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC. At the same time, the learned trial judge has considered the written argument filed by the appellant/proposed defendant to decide the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, and granted an order of temporary mandatory injunction as aforestated. In my considered opinion, the approach of the learned trial judge is inconsistent.