SURESH BABU Vs. T K CHANDRASEKHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions are filed by the 2nd defendant in OS No. 163 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Kannur. The 2nd defendant was the erstwhile Secretary of the Kannur Branch of the Indian Medical Association. The common respondents 1 to 3 in both the writ petitions are defendants 3 and 4 and plaintiff respectively. The 4th respondent is the parent body of the 1st defendant, who is not a party to the suit. The 1st and 2nd respondents got themselves impleaded in the suit as additional 3rd and 4th defendants. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff and defendants as ranked in the suit except in the case of the 4th respondent, who is not a party to the suit, and, hence, referred hereinafter as the 4th respondent as such.

(2.) The above suit OS No. 163 of 2007 was laid before the Court below alleging that election to the Kannur Branch of the Indian Medical Association, manned by the 2nd defendant as Secretary, was overdue for the last few years, and so much so, the 2nd defendant should be directed to declare the election for the Association in the year 2007-08. With the 1st and 2nd defendants in the suit remaining absent, on an interlocutory application moved by the plaintiff, the Court below passed an order directing the 2nd defendant to conduct the election. At that stage, two members of the Association moved an application to get themselves impleaded as additional 3rd and 4th defendants contending that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with the 2nd defendant. Their impleadment being allowed, as additional 3rd and 4th defendants, they filed a joint written statement in which the status of the 2nd defendant as Secretary of the Association was impeached contending that an ad hoc Committee formed is manning the affairs of the local branch. Those defendants also raised a counter claim to declare all acts done by the 2nd defendant as Secretary of the Association after 10/09/2005 as void. The election of the office bearers of the Association ordered on the application moved by the plaintiff and conducted by the 2nd defendant was impeached as having been conducted without complying with the provisions of the bye laws of the Association. The 3rd and 4th defendants had moved a writ petition as WP (C) No. 16489 of 2007 before this Court impeaching the correctness and propriety of the election conducted to the Association, and, pursuant thereto, by an interim order in that writ petition, the Court below appointed an Advocate Commissioner as a returning officer to conduct the election, after arriving at a conclusion that the previous election held was not properly conducted. During the pendency of the above writ petition, before the election could be held under the auspices of the Advocate Commissioner, which in fact still remains to be completed, some events transpired, and that eventually led to passing of some orders by the Court below in the suit, which are at present challenged in these two writ petitions. After an Advocate Commissioner was appointed as the returning officer to conduct the election, the plaintiff reported that he is not eager to prosecute the case and not pressing the suit. Withdrawal of the suit when the writ petition was pending, as aforesaid, being objected to by the 2nd and 3rd defendants this Court disposed of the writ petition issuing some directions vide Ext. P5 judgment. The Court below was directed to examine whether the permission to withdraw the suit is allowable especially when a counter claim had been raised by the additional 3rd and 4th defendants in the suit and also in view of the orders passed by the Court appointing an Advocate Commissioner as returning officer to conduct the election. After disposing of the writ petition as above, additional 4th defendant moved an application to transpose him as the plaintiff in the suit, who by seeking withdrawal was stated as abandoning the suit. Transposition so sought by the additional 4th defendant was objected to by the plaintiff and also by the 1st and 2nd defendants. The learned Munsiff, after hearing both sides, allowed the application moved by the 4th defendant for transposing him as the plaintiff in the suit to continue its prosecution vide Ext. P8 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext. P8 order is challenged by the 2nd defendant in the writ petition WP (C) No. 18587 of 2009.

(3.) Though election to the Kannur branch of the 1st defendant Indian Medical Association was directed to be conducted by appointing an Advocate Commissioner as the returning officer, it is stated, in view of the non cooperation of the 4th respondent and non supply of the voters list, the election could not be conducted. The 4th respondent had also challenged the order of the Court below to conduct the election to the local branch by filing a writ petition before this Court. That writ petition was, however, not pressed as the plaintiff had expressed his desire not to press the suit on the file of the Court below. In the writ petition, the 4th respondent is stated to have produced a copy of the voters list showing the members of the local branch eligible to exercise franchise in the election. Producing a copy of that voters list, the 3rd and 4th defendants applied for issuing of directions / orders to the Advocate Commissioner to conduct the election of the local branch. The Court below allowed that application directing the Advocate Commissioner to publish the said list, fixing a time limit for filing objections, if any, and, then, consider such objections, finalise the list and proceed with the conduct of the election. Ext. P11 is the copy of the order so passed by the Court. Challenge in the writ petition WP (C) No. 18593 of 2009 is against Ext. P11 order.