CALCUTTA COSMOPOLITAN CLUB LTD Vs. BHANWARLAL BHANDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 27th September, 2002 passed by the learned Judge, 10th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1430 of 2002, disposing of an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The plaintiff respondent had sought for an injunction permitting the plaintiff to participate in the Annual General Meeting (AGM) and the Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of the defendant/appellant sought to be held on 28th September, 2002. The learned Judge, while disposing of the application for injunction was of the view that the plaintiff had the status of a permanent member of the club as such he should have a chance to participate in the EGM and AGM to be held on 28th September, 2002.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been taken by Mr. Ashoke Banerjee, the learned counsel for the respondents, that this appeal is not maintainable on two-fold grounds. First, that the meeting has already been held on 28th September, 2002, and nothing remains to be decided. In support, he refers to the order dated 30th April, 2003 passed in this appeal refusing stay of operation of this order appealed against on the self-same ground that the order has lost its force. The second ground is that the order that was granted is not an order within the meaning of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, appealable under Order 43. Since no injunction was granted against the appellant restraining him from holding the meeting, it was only a chance to participate was allowed to the plaintiff.

(3.) This contention has since been opposed on behalf of the appellant on various grounds. One of the grounds is that an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC has since been filed by the plaintiff alleging the breach of the interim order by preventing the plaintiff from participating in the meeting held on 28th September, 2002, which is in the nature of execution and not a contempt and as such, if the order remains, in that event, the Order 39 Rule 2A would also remain pending. In support of his contention, Mr. Mukherjee had relied on a few decisions to which the reference would be made at an appropriate stage.