DELHI & DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOCIATION Vs. RAJNISH AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of two appeals bearing F.A.O. No.146/2013 titled Delhi District & Cricket Association vs. Rajnish Aggarwal & Ors. and F.A.O. No.145/2013 titled Ravinder Manchanda & Ors. vs. Rajnish Aggarwal & Ors.

(2.) IN both these appeals, a common order dated 13.3.2013 is assailed which was passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC in favour of respondent Nos.1 & 2 and against the appellants as well as against respondent Nos.5 to 10. Before dealing with the submissions made by the respective sides, it would be pertinent here to give a brief background leading to the filing of the present appeals. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed a suit bearing No.8/2013 against the appellant and 18 others seeking a declaration and The numbers of the appellants and the respondent are given with reference to F.A.O. No.146/2013. permanent injunction. The reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction prayed for are, as under : -

(3.) THE respondent Nos.1 and 2 had sought a declaration to the effect that result of the election of six posts of members of Executive Committee of DDCA which include four posts of Joint Secretary and two posts of Executive Member which was held on 21.12.2012 declared null and void. The case of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 was that respondent Nos.5 to 10 be restrained from acting or discharging functions as members of the Executive Committee of the DDCA in pursuance to the elections held in the said Meeting. It was alleged by the respondent No.1 that he had 99 valid proxy votes which were duly deposited at the registered office of the DDCA/appellant as per the mandate of the election notice issued by respondent No.3 (B.L. Garg) and respondent No.4 [Mr. Justice (Retd.) R.C. Chopra, Chief Election Officer, since deleted from the array of the defendants in the suit], more than 48 hours before the Annual General Meeting in which the said election took place. Despite the fact that the respondent had entered into the arena of election hall along with 99 proxies duly mentioned with a list, he was not permitted to cast his vote as a consequence of which the respondent No.1 was deprived to have himself elected to the post of the Joint Secretary. It was alleged to have created an unfair advantage to the respondent Nos.5 to 10, who would not have got elected had the respondent Nos.1 & 2 been permitted to cast these votes.