B P SINHA Vs. TARA PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by defendant No. 4 of Title Suit No. 19 of 1968, pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Dhanbad and it is directed against the appellate order passed by the learned District Judge on the 20th December, 1968, passing an order of ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The trial court by its order dated the 12th September, 1968 had rejected the plaintiffs' application for ad interim injunction until the disposal of the suit. On an application filed by the plaintiff before the trial court, an order was passed by that court on the 5th June, 1968, issuing notice upon the defendants to show cause as to why the plaintiff's prayer for temporary injunction should not be granted, and in the meantime, an order for ad interim injunction was passed. The ad interim injunction was in the line prayed for by the plaintiff, for restraining the defendants from brining about any change in the present ad hoc governing body of Raja Shiva Prasad Singh College and for directing the old ad hoc governing body to continue , This order of the trial court dated the 5th June, 1968 was withdrawn by the final order passed on the 12th September, 1968. It may be mentioned that substantially the plaintiff's suit is for a declaration that certain changes made in the composition of the ad hoc governing body, as indicated in the letter of the registrar of the Ranchi University, dated the 27th February, 1968, was illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction. After the appeal in the court of appeal below had been filed by the plaintiff from the order of the learned Subordinate Judge dated the 12th September, 1968, an ad interim order was passed by the court of appeal below restraining the respondents to the appeal, namely the defendants of the suit, from giving effect to the order excluding the plaintiff from the ad hoc governing body, as indicated in the letter dated the 27th February, 1968. The court of appeal below by the judgment and order under revision has allowed the appeal and has made absolute the ad interim order passed on the 20th September, 1968.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the court of appeal below has not appreciated the real contentions raised in this case and an order has been passed which would paralyse the running of the college altogether. According to the learned Counsel for the plaintiff -opposite party, when the learned District Judge found a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff, he was quite right in passing an order of ad interim injunction restraining the new ad hoc governing body from functioning. It is argued that the old ad hoc governing body is now entitled to act and an irreparable loss will be caused to the plaintiff -opposite party if the order of injunction is vacated. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having considered the judgments of the courts below, I am of the view that the trial court's order was right in the circumstances of the case and that the order of the learned District Judge must be reversed. Even proceeding on the footing that a prima facie case was established by the plaintiff, the question of balance of convenience was more material and in that respect, the approach of the learned Subordinate Judge was correct, whereas the approach made by the learned District Judge is erroneous. As a matter of fact, the learned District Judge commenced by stating in paragraph 21 of his judgment and order that the next question for consideration was regarding the balance of convenience, but, thereafter, I do not find that the real question of the balance of convenience has been decided at all. In substance, what the learned District Judge has done is to hold that if injunction is not granted in favour of the plaintiff, irreparable loss would be caused to him, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. The learned Subordinate Judge had considered the question of balance of convenience in paragraph 16 of his judgment and order, stating that if an order of injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff, there would be stalemate in the day to day administration of the college and if the changes made in the ad hoc committee be not allowed to take place further functioning of the college would be paralysed, especially when the Secretary, Sri L.J. Pathak, of the old ad hoc governing body had in the meanwhile resigned. In my opinion, consideration of the balance of convenience makes it clear that the order of injunction passed by the learned District Judge must be vacated. The learned Judge has himself stated in paragraph 5 of his judgment and order that in or about July 1966 certain changes had been introduced in the constitution of the ad hoc governing body, by which three existing members were replaced by three members and in February, 1968 the plaintiff and two others were dropped from the membership of the ad hoc governing body. The result of accepting the contention of learned Counsel for the plaintiff -opposite party, that, the old ad hoc governing body can still function will be to hold that the other two persons who have been dropped from the old ad hoc governing body will now have to be taken as members of the old ad hoc governing body. There may be insurmountable difficulties in the way of bringing in the other two members who were dropped in February, 1968 from the ad hoc governing body. These two persons are not parties to this litigation and nobody knows about their attitude. Therefore, it is clear to my mind that the order of injunction passed by the learned District Judge will really affect the working of the college seriously. Sri Pathak was the Secretary of the old ad hoc governing body and he has resigned. On this score also, there may be difficulty in the functioning of the old ad hoc governing body, if the new ad hoc governing body is not permitted to function by the order of injunction. On a consideration of all the aspects of the matter, I have come to the conclusion that no injunction should have been granted in favour of the plaintiff in this case.

(3.) The civil revision is, therefore, allowed and the order passed by the learned District Judge dated the 20th December, 1968 is reversed and that passed by the learned Subordinate Judge on the 12th September, 1968 is restored. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order for costs. At the request of learned Counsel for the parties, it is directed that the trial court should dispose of title Suit No. 19 of 1968 expeditiously. The undertaking given by Sri N.N. Roy on the 12th March, 1969 stands vacated.