Grant of ad interim injunction without notice to the defendants in the suit is not justified when the election process had already commenced, the plaintiff has not made out any prima facie case and the balance of convenience does not justify the grant of ad-interim injunction.

P. RAMACHANDRA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against an adinterim injunction issued by the district Judge Karimnagar in I. A. No. 67/83 in C. M. A. No. 5/83 on his file

( 2 ) THE material facts can be briefly noticed. The two petitioners are defendants 2 and 3 in O. S. No. 9/83 on the file of the Subordinate Judge. Karimnagar. The 1st defendant is the State Bank of India Officers association (hereinafter called the Association) represented by its President Sri kotaiah. That Association is the 2nd repondent in this revision. The 2nd defendant is the General Secretary of the Association. The 3rd defendent is the Chairman of the Election Committee of the Association. The 1st resppondent who is the plaintiff in the suit is a Member of the Association. He filed the suit for a declaration that the defendants have no locus standi to hold election of Officer-Bearers to thelst defendant Association. Pending suit he applied for the grant of a temporary injunction. The Subordinate Judge by his order dated 18-3-1983 directed issue of urgent notice. The order of the Subordinate Judge read:"the relief of injunction has not been asked in the O. S. Hence it cannot be said that the purpose of the suit will be defeated by issuing notice. Hence issue urgent notice by registered post and through court returnable by 26-2-1983. The plaintiff preferred C. M. A. No. 5/83 before the District Judge, karimnagar, treating the aforesaid order of the Subordinate Judge as a refusal to grant ad interim injunction. The District Judge entertained the c. M. A. and has passed the impugned order exparte: "the impugned order refusing to grant temporary injunction prayed for by the petitioners seems to be prima facie errone ous. It is not necessary that in order to entitle the plaintiff in a suit that the relief in the suit should be one for perpetual injunction. The proposed elections of the Office Bearers of the respondent association is said to be fixed on 7-3-1983. In the cirumstances, the suit would become infructuqus if the relief of temporary injunction is refused. Therefore issue notice to the respondents and there will be an interim injunction against the respondents. "the result of this impugned order of the District Judge is that elections of the Office Bearers of the Association fixed for 7-3-1983 could not beheld.

( 3 ) THE main submissions made by Mr. E. S. Ramachandra Murthy are-the District Judge committed an error of jurisdiction in entertaining C. M. A. No. 5/83. Even if such C. M. A could be filed, the District Judge commitied an error in granting an exparte injunction when the Subordinate judge Karimnagar felt that no such exparte ad interim injunction could be granted without first directing notice of the application to the defendants in the suit. Taking the background in which the disputes were raised, the granting of an ad interim injunction is not justified.

( 4 ) WHEN the Subordinate Judge Karimnagar directed issue of notice on the temporary injunction applied for by the plaintiff the said order directing notice cannot be construed as an order refusing to grant the temporary injunction applied for An order directing notice on the temporary injunction application is not therefore an appealable order. The decision of a single Judge of the Punjab High Court in Jqbal Singh vs. Chanan Singh would make this position clear. The grant of the exparte injunction by the district Judge Karimnagar is therefore without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed.

( 5 ) THE second and third of the submissions made by Mr. Ramachandra murthy go together. A eritical study if he records reveals that at the 15th General Body Meeting of the Association held at Nellore on 1-3-1981 the Bye-Laws of the Association were adopted. In terms of those bye-Laws the President or General Secretary appear to be vested with more or less equal powers excepting that even the General Secretary should act in areas in which he could act in consultation with the President. I

Click Here to Read the rest of this document