DINESH KUMAR GOYAL Vs. PAWAN CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 the petitioner who is the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 4009 of 2008 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Alipore complains of wilful and deliberate violation of Order No. 2 dated 7.1.2009 passed in connection with the said suit.

(2.) The plaintiff applied for membership of the defendant No.1 club and such membership was granted sometime in the year of 2002 upon acceptance of a sum of Rs.2,04,150/-. On 15.2.2005 the club asked him to appear before the committee which is entrusted with management and affairs of the club on 22.2.2005. On 21.2.2005 the defendant No.2 the Secretary of the club informed him of the postponement of the meeting scheduled on 22.2.2005. On 21.2.2005 itself the plaintiff requested the defendant No. 2 to dispense with his personal appearance and to treat his membership as a regular one. On 18.9.2006 the plaintiff requested the defendant No. 2 to furnish to him upto date information, date and members directory but the defendants failed to do so. Sometime in the year of 2006 the club imposed upon him a unreasonable instruction regarding service of food at the outer restaurant club, named, "Sequence". On 10.7.2006 the plaintiff requested the defendant No.2 to remove such unreasonable instruction. This request was further renewed by a letter dated 16.6.2007. The defendant declined to pay any heed to the request of the plaintiff. Request to remove the said unreasonable instruction was again renewed by a subsequent reminder dated 23.11.2006 but in vain. On 28.11.2008 the club issued a communication to the plaintiff asking him to withdraw his charges against the committee members and cancelled his temporary membership with immediate effect. The plaintiff replied to the letter on 4.12.2008 denying the charges. By further letter dated 5.12.2008 plaintiff asked the defendant No.1 to supply copy of the rules and regulations of the club and recent list of members of the club but he was denied; then the plaintiff issued an Advocate's letter dated 6.12.2008 narrating all the facts and denying the charges. There was further request by the plaintiff by communication dated 8.12.2008 for supply to him the copy of rules and regulations of the club but he was not given the documents asked for in spite of the charges having been denied. The communication dated 28.11 ;2008 whereby his temporary membership was cancelled was not withdrawn by the club. Thus, the suit was instituted for declaration that the purported communication dated 28.11.2008 whereby his temporary membership was cancelled was illegal and void and for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from acting on that communication dated 28.11.2008 and for mandatory injunction so as to allow the plaintiff to enter into the club. The suit was instituted in December, 2008. Copies of communications were annexed to the plaint.

(3.) On 7.1.2009 the plaintiff moved an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. praying for temporary injunction as also ad interim ex parte injunction so as to compel the defendants not to give effect to the communication dated 28.11.2008 whereby his temporary membership was cancelled. The learned trial Court by the Order No. 2 dated 7.1.2007 granted an ex parte ad interim injunction to restrain the club from enforcing their letter dated 28.11.2008 issued to the plaintiff whereby membership was cancelled. This ex parte interim injunction was extended from time to time.