V HARIKRISHNAN Vs. RAGHUNATH REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC' for short) are by the 1st plaintiff in O.S.No.3056/2016 on the file of the XXXV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. The 2nd plaintiff is Karnataka Chemists and Druggist Association (referred to as "Association" hereafter). The plaintiff instituted a suit seeking a declaration that he is the President of the plaintiff No.2 Association and for a consequential decree of perpetual injunction to restrain defendants from claiming to be officer bearers of the Association and obstructing him from functioning as the President of the Managing Committee of the said Association.

(2.) The first plaintiff has pleaded that in a meeting held on 25.6.2015 he was elected as the President of the Association. On 1.1.2016, a general body meeting of the Association was held at Madikeri and in that meeting one of the items of the agenda was about the amendments to be brought to the bye-laws of the Association. It was unanimously accepted. Since there was no approved bye-laws, the general body of the Association treated all the office bearers as adhoc till the proposed amendments were submitted and registered. In order to implement the resolutions passed at the general body, the plaintiff No.1 wrote a letter on 26.03.2016 to the second defendant who was the General Secretary of the Association to convene a meeting on 5.4.2016. But till 4.4.2016 he did not take any action and thereafter he issued a meeting notice on 5.4.2016 fixing the meeting date as 10.4.2016. The first plaintiff went to attend the meeting and saw somebody else having chaired the meeting. He tried to explain the gathering about the position of the bye-laws and need to amend it. But the defendants and others hackled him with unwanted and unrelated topics. They threatened him saying that they would bring people from all over the state and picket his residence and office. Therefore plaintiff No.1 left the meeting hall. It is further stated that defendant No.1 enemically disposed of towards plaintiff No.1 circulated whatsapp messages painting him in bad shape. In the said messages he has also mentioned that first defendant was care taker President of the Association. The defendants conspired to collect the keys of the office premises of the Association unauthorisedly. The plaintiff No.1 stated that he did not resign from the post of President. Second defendant issued a letter on 12.4.2016 on a fabricated letterhead stating that plaintiff No.1 stepped down from the post of President and walked out of the meeting hall and that he was no more a President right from 2.2.2016. Since the defendants made a consulted attempted to unseat him from the post of President, he filed the suit for above reliefs. Along with the plaint he also filed two applications, I.A.No.1 and 2 under Order 39 Rues 1 and 2 CPC. In I.A.No.1 he sought an order of temporary injunction restraining the first defendant from functioning as the President of Association and in I.A.No.2 he sought an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing him from functioning as the President of the Association.

(3.) The first defendant filed statement of objection to these two applications contending that the first plaintiff suppressed the material facts and attempted to mislead the court for obtaining an order of temporary injunction. He stated that the first plaintiff has no legal right to institute the suit. According to the first defendant, the Association was registered in the year 1944 under Societies Registration Act. The bye-laws were also registered. Subsequently bye-laws were amended and registered with the District Registrar on 16.09.1964. In the election held on 19.05.2013, 31 members were elected to the managing committee for the period 2013-14 to 2016-17. One K.E.Prakash was elected as the President and one Mr. A.K. Jeevan, i.e., the 2nd defendant was elected as the Secretary. But K.E. Prakash resigned from the President post even before completion of his tenure. The 1st appellant forcefully assumed charge as the care taker or adhoc President and started falsifying the records before the Deputy Registrar. On 10.4.2016 at the Managing Committee meeting the first plaintiff resigned from the post of care taker President of the Association. On that day the first defendant was lawfully appointed as the President. It is contended that the first plaintiff has no legal right to file the suit because at no point of time he was the member of the Managing Committee. Even if it is assumed that he had a legal right to act as the President of the Association, his tenure ended in the year 2015 itself. Fresh elections were held thereafter and the first defendant was democratically and legally elected as the President. In these set of circumstances, the 1st plaintiff has no right to sue. The managing committee has the prerogative to replace the President at any time as per the bye laws. The first plaintiff has not made out prima facie case. Balance of convenience also does not lie in his favour. He suffers no loss or injury if injunction is not granted.