RAJEEV Vs. SUNIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Order impugned in both the Original Petitions afore referred is the one dtd. 1/4/2022 rendered in I.A.No.4/2022 in the suit, O.S.No.580/2021 of the Additional Munsiff Court-I, Neyyattinkara, the order being produced as Ext.P10 in both the Original Petitions. The Original Petition first above referred to, is preferred by the plaintiff in the suit and the second, by the 4th defendant, who is the wife of the plaintiff in the suit. O.P.(C) No.756/2022 is taken as the lead case.

(2.) Brief facts: A suit was filed restraining the defendants from issuing any notice for convening the meeting of Board of Trustees, Annual General Meeting and extra ordinary General Meeting of the fifth defendant Trust, essentially premised on the ground that, the plaintiff - the managing Trustee of the fifth defendant Trust - alone is entitled to call for a meeting as per Ext.P2 bye-laws of the Trust. An interim order of injunction was granted, restraining defendants 1 to 3 from conducting any meeting of the Trust on 16/8/2021 as per the notice issued for the said purpose, and also restraining them from issuing further notice to convene any meeting of the Trust, except by issuing notice to the plaintiff seeking to convene any such meeting.

(3.) Thereupon, the first defendant D.Sunil filed Ext.P6 application seeking a direction to the plaintiff to issue notice to all the five members of the Board of Trustees of the fifth defendant Trust to convene a meeting of the Board of Trustees immediately, on the agenda detailed in the affidavit attached to Ext.P6; or in the alternative, to permit the Chairman to conduct such meeting with notice to all members as provided in the Trust deed. The plaintiff D.Rejeev filed Ext.P7 counter affidavit seeking to defer the consideration of Ext.P6 interlocutory application till a decision is rendered by the Director of Public Instructions regarding the second defendant's right to hold the post of Headmistress simultaneous with being a member of the Board of Trustees. The fourth defendant in the suit, who is the wife of the plaintiff, also filed a counter affidavit seeking dismissal of Ext.P6 interim application. By Ext.P10 impugned order, Ext.P6 interlocutory application was allowed, directing the plaintiff to issue notice within fourteen days to convene a meeting of the Board of Trustees. The order also directed that if the plaintiff fails to issue notice as directed, the first defendant, who is the Chairman of the Trust, is permitted to apply to the Court for fixing a date for the meeting and issue notice to the members of the Trust through the Court.