BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J

(1.0 This first miscellaneous appeal is at the instance of the defendants in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and is directed against Order No. 12 dated 26th February, 2008 passed by the learned Judge, Twelve Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 467 of 2007, thereby allowing an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff- respondents after rejecting an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code filed by present appellants. By the order impugned, the learned Trial Judge made the earlier interim order granted by it absolute till the disposal of the suit.

(2.0 Being dissatisfied, the defendants have come up with the present first miscellaneous appeal.

(3.0 The plaintiffs-respondents filed the aforesaid suit thereby praying for the following relief: "(a) A decree for declaration that since there is no existence of the Steering Committee in the Constitution of the Defendant Mahasabha, the said purported Steering Committee has no right to take any decision; (b) A decree for declaration that entire process for dissolving the plaintiff No. 1 as adopted by the defendant No.1 is vitiated by irregularities and as such the decisions taken on 24th May, 2007 by the Steering Committee of the defendant No.1 is bad, illegal, null, void-ab-initio and liable to be cancelled and/or delivered up and not binding upon the plaintiffs; (c) A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men, agent, servant and associates from giving into effect and/or further effect to the letter dated 25th May, 2007 written by the Working President of the Gandhabanik Mahasabha, the defendant No.2 here in the letter pad of the General Secretary of the defendant No. 1 and to take any steps and/or further steps in aid of the said letter dated 25th May, 2007. (d) Costs of the suit; (e) Any other relief or reliefs as the plaintiffs are entitled to law and equity."

(4.0 The case made out by the plaintiffs-respondents may be summed up thus: (a) The plaintiff No. 1, namely, Gandhabanik Mahasabha, Bardhaman Sakha Samity, (hereinafter referred to as the samity) is an unregistered society and also a branch and/or affiliated unit of the parent body of the Central Unit of Gandhabanik Mahasabha (hereinafter referred to as the Mahasabha) the defendant No.1. Although, the plaintiff No.1 is an affiliated unit of the defendant No.1, it has separate rules and regulations of its own and the body of the plaintiff No.1, Samity, is also selected by its own members and accordingly, it had no nexus with the defendant No.1. (b) As per rules and regulations of the plaintiff No.1, samity, the formation of branch office outside the purview of Calcutta is permitted and the plaintiff No.1, samity, had been formed accordingly and became affiliated under the defendant No. 1: (c) The defendant No.1 is the parent body of the plaintiff No.1, samity, which is governed under its own constitution. The body of the defendant No.1, Mahasabha, consists of one President, one Ex-President, maximum number of eight Vice-Presidents, one General Secretary, five Secretaries, six Assistant Secretaries, one Treasurer, one Accountant and maximum number of fifty-five members of the Executive Committee, which includes at least total number of three women, one President, one Secretary and one nominated member of each branch committee. (d) In terms of the aforesaid Rule, the President and the Secretary and any one nominated member of the plaintiff No. 1, samity, can be a member of the Executive Committee of the defendant No.1, Mahasabha, and therefore, a member of the plaintiff No.1, samity, shall have the power to be associated with the other association. (e) There was no bar for a member to act and hold the post under both the plaintiff No.1 and the defendant No.1. (f) As per the object and function of the plaintiff No.1, samity, it arranged Gandheswari Puja every year and celeb