RAJU C RAPHAEL Vs. REGENCY CLUB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners filed O.S.No.1633 of 2010 on the file of the court of the Munsiff of Thrissur against the respondents for a declaration that the amendments brought into the bye-laws of the first defendant club in the meeting held on 13.2.2010 are illegal, unsustainable and without any force. THEre is also a prayer for consequential injunction. THE plaintiffs filed I.A.No.5228 of 2010 for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from implementing the amended bye-laws.

(2.) A Commissioner was appointed by the trial court who submitted a report after perusal of the records of the meeting. The trial court, after considering all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, held that the suggested amendments to the bye-laws, with the changes suggested by some of the members were passed unanimously by the members who attended the meeting. Therefore, it was held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get an order of temporary injunction. The plaintiffs challenged the order of the trial court in C.M.A.No.13 of 2011 on the file of the court of the First Additional District Judge, Thrissur. The appellate court confirmed the order passed by the trial court. The order and judgment referred to above are under challenge in this Original Petition.

(3.) ON going through the order and the judgment passed by the courts below, I do not find any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the fact. At the same time, the grievance of the petitioners that more than 3/4th of the members of the club would not be able to exercise their franchise is a matter to be taken note of. However, the grievance of the petitioners would be redressed, if the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents is accepted. Accordingly, the Original Petition is disposed of as follows :