CALCUTTA SWIMMING CLUB Vs. DEOKINANDAN BUBNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Calcutta Swimming club, its Secretary S. Dutta and its President D.S. Jain have preferred an appeal against the order dated 18.9.92 passed by the learned Chief Judge-in-Charge, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1934 of 1992. The said suit was brought by one Rabindra Nath Mukherjee, a member of the Calcutta Swimming Club praying for a declaration that the list of candidates for election of the club prepared by the defendants in terms of Rule 35 (c) is illegal, bad in law and is liable to be cancelled, praying further for a degree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from action and/or functioning and/or administering and/or taking any decision whatsoever and/or giving effect to the decision taken by them or to take any step in furtherance therewith. There was a further prayer for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from giving effect and/or further effect to their notice for Annual General Meeting dated 28.8.92 and taking further steps in aid of the said notice and also restraining the defendants from giving effect and/or further effect to the list of the candidates for the Committee election 1992-93 issued by the defendant No. 3 under Rule 35(c) dated 28.8.92 and from giving effect or further effect or to take steps in aid of alleged election of the Calcutta Swimming Club for the Committee members and the President which was allegedly held on 12th September, 1992, there was also a prayer for appointment of a Receiver upon the Club to run and administer the said Club and to conduct the election on the basis of valid permanent members as per the rules and regulations of the club.

(2.) The learned Trial Judge issued notice upon the defendants asking them to show cause as to why the petition for injunction should not be allowed and considering the urgency in the matter he directed an order of status quo to be issued against both the parties as on that day till the disposal of the said petition.

(3.) Even though a leave under Order 1 Rule 8 of the code of Civil Procedure was prayed for, it does not appeal that the court was moved in this regard and no leave was granted by the court prior to the granting of an interim order of maintenance of status quo on 18.9.92.