KERALA BADMINTON ASSOCIATION Vs. IDUKKI BADMINTON ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the Vacation Court, Ernakulam in I.A. No. 1224 of 2001 in unnumbered O. S. / 2001 dated 18.5.2001 is under challenge in this revision petition. The I.A. was filed for temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the right of franchise of the petitioners in the election of the first respondent association alleging that the respondents are trying to obstruct petitioners 2 to 4 from representing the first petitioner and participating in the election of the first respondent association which is to be held in the second week of May 2001. The Vacation Court, after hearing both sides, allowed the petition restraining the respondents by temporary injunction from interfering with the exercise of the petitioner's right as nominated members of the first respondent association and from obstructing them from participating in the election and exercising their franchise in the election of the first respondent association proposed to be held in the second week of May 2001 for the year 2001-2002 to 2004-2005, overruling the contentions raised by the respondents that the first petitioner association is not recognised and affiliated to the first respondent association and they have not complied with the rules and regulations of first respondent and violated the provisions of R.6 of the bye laws of the first respondent association. Hence the respondents have preferred the appeal before this Court.

(2.) The counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order is a final order passed by the vacation court which is illegal and unsustainable being without jurisdiction. S.19(2) of the Kerala Civil Courts Act empowers the District Judge nominated as the Vacation Judge of the District Court to make provisional orders on urgent matters and such orders, except in matters to be presented in the District Court, shall remain in force until such matter has been heard and decided by the Court having jurisdiction. Therefore the counsel for the appellant submitted that by the impugned order, the vacation court has disposed of the application itself by passing a final order and therefore the order passed by the vacation court is illegal being without jurisdiction.

(3.) It is contended by the counsel for the respondent that the impugned order is only a provisional order passed by the vacation court though it is passed after hearing both sides. The counsel for the respondent submitted that the vacation court passed the impugned order on a very urgent matter regarding selection to the first appellant, association and the impugned order is passed permitting the respondents to participate in the election as otherwise the very suit and the petition filed by the respondents would have become infructuous with regard to the right of the respondents to participate in the election. On going through the impugned order passed by the vacation court, it is clear that the order passed by the vacation court is only a provisional order permitting the respondents to participate in the election of the first appellant to be held in the second week of May. Therefore the contention raised by the revision petitioner that the impugned order is a final order passed by the vacation court and therefore it is without jurisdiction under S.19(2) of the Kerala Civil Courts Act is not sustainable. Merely because of the fact that the I.A. filed by the respondents before the vacation court is disposed of by the impugned order, it will not lose its character as a provisional order passed in the suit.