JUDGMENT

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1. I.A. No.1 of 2012 has been filed by the Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association (SCAORA) in Civil Appeal Nos.3401 and 3402 of 2003, which were disposed of on 26th September, 2011, and form the genesis of the events leading to the filing of the said application. It has been a painful experience for us to have had to hear this matter as it involves two sections of the Supreme Court Bar Association whose unbecoming posturing has cast dark shadows on the functioning of the Bar Association even in the eyes of the general public and the litigants who throng the Supreme Court each day for their cases.

2. While Civil Appeal No.3401 of 2003 was filed by three Appellants, namely, (i) Supreme Court Bar Association (Regd.) through its Honorary Secretary, Mr. Ashok Arora; (ii) Mr. Ashok Arora in his capacity as the Honorary Secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association; and (iii) Ms. Sunita B. Rao, Coordinator, Implementation Committee, Supreme Court Bar Association, (hereinafter referred to as SCBA), on the other hand, Civil Appeal No.3402 of 2003 has been filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association through its Honorary Secretary. Both the Appeals are directed against the interim order dated 5th April, 2003, passed by the learned Civil Judge on an application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed in Civil Suit Nos.100 and 101 of 2003. By the common order, the Appellants were restrained from implementing the Resolution dated February 18, 2003, amending Rule 18 of the Rules and Regulations of SCBA till the final disposal of both the suits. While Shri B.D. Kaushik is the sole Respondent in Civil Appeal No.3401 of 2003, Shri A.K. Manchanda is the sole Respondent in Civil Appeal No.3402 of 2003. Both the Respondents are Advocates who are practising in Delhi and are Members of the SCBA, the Delhi Bar Association and the Bar Association of the Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

3. The Supreme Court Bar Association is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, on 25th August, 1999, under Registration No.35478 of 1999. In keeping with the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the SCBA has framed its Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations, Rule 4 whereof divides the Members into four separate classes, namely,:

(i) Resident Members;

(ii) Non-Resident Members;

(iii) Associate Members; and

(iv) Non-Active Members.

3.1. Rule 5(v)(a) provides that in terms of Rule 5, an Applicant found to be suitable to be made a Member of the Association would be made Member initially on temporary basis for a period of two years. It also provides that a person who is made such a Member, would be identified as a temporary Member who would be entitled to avail the facilities of the Association, such as library and canteen, but would not have a right to participate in general meetings, as prescribed in Rule 21 or to contest and vote at the elections, as provided in Rule 18.

4. On 23rd January, 2003, the Office of the SCBA received a requisition dated 10th January, 2003, signed by 343 Members seeking an amendment to Rule 18 regarding the eligibility of the Members to contest and vote at an election. It was proposed that the Member, who exercised his right to vote in any High Court or District Court Advocates/Bar Association, would not be eligible to contest for any post of the SCBA or to cast his vote at the elections. The said requisition dated 10th January, 2003, was considered in the meeting of the Executive Committee of the SCBA on 1st February, 2003 and a decision was taken to hold a Special General Body Meeting on 18th February, 2003, to consider the requisition. It appears that notice for the said General Body Meeting was issued by the SCBA on 6th February, 2003, and copies of the same were sent to the Members along with the cause list. The notice was also displayed on the Notice Board of the office of the SCBA situated in the Supreme C