S P ARORA Vs. ROSHANARA CLUB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IANo.318/92 This case reflects a sad commentary on the gross abuse of the process of the courts resulting in thwarting the Annual General Meeting (for short 'AGM') of Roshanara Club,defcndant No.l, and preventing its members from exercising their democratic right of franchise. By order dated November 11,1991 in the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration and injunction the Managing Committee of the Club was directed to meet within two weeks and fix a date for holding the 'AGM' before January 10,1991 under the Chairmanship of Justice J.D.Jain who was invested with all the necessary powers to carry out the purpose and spirit of the order. In view of this direction the counsel for the plaintiffs withdrew the suit, the same having been satisfied. He also withdrew all allegations against the defendants unconditionally. That seemed to be the end of the controversy. But that was not to be so.

(2.) On January 8,1991 the date fixed by the defendant No.l for holding the 'AGM' pursuant to the order dated November 11,1991, two interlocutory injunctions one by Upper Civil Judge Magistrate,Jaipur and the other by Sub Judge,Delhi were served on (he defendant No. 1. The Jaipur court by its order dated January 7,1992 directed that the "AGM scheduled to beheld on January 8,1992 be kept adjourned".(The Hindi word used in the order is "Sthagith Rakhe" which also means "keep in abeyance"). In the order it was further recorded that the notice of the application for temporary injunction was issued but the same was refused by the Club. The Delhi Court by its order dated January 7,1992 restrained defendant No.l "from holding the elections of the office bearers of the Club at its Annual General Body Meeting". In view of these stay orders the 'AGM' was adjourned without fixing afresh date for holding the same. Subsequently at the instance of the plaintiffs the said injunction orders of the courts at Delhi and Jaipur were vacated but this did not help in regaining the lost opportunity for the 'AGM' to transact its business including the election of the members of the Managing Committee, which was on its agenda, thus frustrating and defeating the orders of this court dated November 11,1991. In view of these developments the Chairman, by his report dated January 13,1992,has sought fresh directions for holding the 'AGM' and election of the office bearers of defendant No.l. By their present application filed on January 13,1992,the plaintiffs also seek somewhat similar directions. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

(3.) The question is could the court at Jaipur or the Subordinate court at Delhi pass restraint orders in view of the orders passed by this court .dated November 11,1991?