N GANESAN Vs. S MEENAKSHISUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall govern these three appeals in OSA Nos. 243 to 245 of 2009. Having failed before the learned Single Judge, the appellant/plaintiff has filed these appeals.

(2.) PENDING the suit, three applications were taken, first one for an interim injunction that the respondents/ defendants 1 to 6 should not take any major policy decisions, second one for appointment of an Advocate commissioner to assist the 7th respondent for re-scrutinizing the ballot papers and third one for a direction to the 7th respondent to re-scrutinize the ballot papers and re-count the same in respect of seven named constituencies. All these applications were heard by the learned Single Judge. By an elaborate order, the learned Single Judge has negatived all the contentions and dismissed the applications. Hence these appeals have arisen.

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel mr. K. Doraisami put forth his contentions that it was a registered Society; that originally, a notification was issued, and thereafter, the election has taken place on 23. 6. 2008; that the polling time was given as between 9. 00 A. M. and 2. 00 P. M. ; that subsequently, a publication was made wherein the time schedule has been changed; that the persons who were to make their votes, could not come within time by seeing the original notification; that under the circumstances, it has caused prejudice; that all these things were brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, but were not considered, and hence interim injunction was sought for that major policy should not be taken and also appointment of advocate Commissioner and re-scrutiny of the ballot papers were asked for.