NARAPARAJU RAMAMURTHY Vs. PARIMI VENKATANARAYANA AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order was passed by the President of the District Board of Guntur on the 7th February, 1939, appointing defendant 1 as temporary President to conduct an election of the President of the Panchayat Board of Inukollu (Ex. XXV). Notices to the members of the Panchayat Board intimating that the election of the President would be held on the 25th February, 1939, are stated to have been issued on the 16th February, 1939, Exs. XII to XXIII. It was alleged on behalf of the first and second defendants that certain proceedings took place on the date mentioned in which the second defendant was elected to be the President. An order was passed by the Government of Madras on the 12th May, 1939, G.O. No. 1879 (Ex. VIII), holding that the second defendant was validly elected. It is not necessary for me to refer to any more letters written by or on behalf of the Inspector of Municipal Councils subsequently. But before the election was held on the 25th February, 1939, a suit was instituted by the plaintiff against defendant 1 for an injunction restraining him from holding an election. A temporary injunction was also asked for but it was not granted. After the so-called election the second defendant was impleaded by an order of this Court passed in C. M. P. 2481 of 1939 on the 6th June, 1939, as a party to the suit.

(2.) The main question that has to be decided now relates to the maintainability of the suit. The plaintiff alleged that in point of fact there was no election. The first Court, the District Munsif of Bapatla held against the plaintiff but on appeal his judgment was reversed by the Subordinate Judge and the suit decreed. The second defendant has consequently come up to this Court in second appeal.

(3.) Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that: