( 1 ) THE dispute in the present case really pertains to the control of management of the Indian Olympic Association (hereinafter referred to as IOA) which is an apex sports body of this country affiliated to the International Olympic Committee. It is paradoxical that those who are fighting for the control of management of a sports association have shown total lack of sportsman spirit on their part. The suit is part of an ongoing battle regarding the control of management of adairs of the IOA After the efforts of this Court in an earlier litigation and that of the Madras High Court to have the elections of the IOA smoothly conducted were thwarted in a manner which leaves behind a bad taste (putting it most mildly), the Supreme Court ordered the elections to be held for the remaining term which expires in November 1992. In the elections so held in April 1991 defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were elected as President and Secretary General of the IOA respectively. The prayer in the present suit is to restrain these duly elected office bearers of defendant No. I from discharging their functions as such. Alongwith the suit an application has been filed being I. A. No. 11337 of 1991 for interim orders in this behalf. By this order I propose to dispose of the said application.

( 2 ) THE suit has been filed by three plaintiffs each of whom claims to be the President of his respective sports body. The sports bodies are affiliate members of defendant No. I. It is further stated that these sports bodies are Societies duly registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860. A registered society can sue and be sued in its own name. However, the present suit is not by the three registered societies whose Presidents the plaintiffs claim to be, nor is there any averment in the plaint that the suit has been filed by the three plaintiffs on behalf of their respective sports bodies. In view of absence of such an averment it would be unnecessary to look for any authorisation by the respective sports bodies whose Presidents the three plaintiffs claim to be, in favour of the three plaintiffs authorising them to file the present suit on behalf of these bodies. In fact there is no such authorisation placed on record. I may also note here that the suit is not claimed to be a suit under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure in relation to a public matter, if that were to be so, requirements of Section 91, Code of Civil Procedure would have had to be fulfilled. The prayer in the suit is to restrain defendants 2 and 3 who are the President and Secretary General of defendant No. I respectively from functioning as such. In a nut-shell what was lost at the ballot is sought to be achieved through process of the Court.

( 3 ) COUNSEL for the plaintiffs has pointed out the following three reasons for grant of injunction in favour of the plaintids :-

(1) Defendants 2 and 3 have large funds of the IOA at their command and they are not utilising the funds in the interests of the Association. (2) Defendants 2 and 3 are not doing anything in furtherance of aims and objects of the IOA which is apparent from the fact that even National Games have not been held. In this behalf it is also submitted by Counsel that the Afro-Asian Games which were to be held in India between 7th March and 16th March 1992, were not held. (3) the Rules of the IOA have been amended in a manner so as to perpetuate their control over the IOA by defendants 2 and 3. It is not disputed by the plaintiffs that defendants 2 and 3 were duly elected as office bearers of defendant No. I in the special General Assembly Meeting of the IOA held on 28th April 1991. It is submitted that defendant No. 2 is a permanent resident of Madras and the Secretariat of IOA is located at New Delhi and he is, therefore, unable to take proper interest in the affairs of IOA. In para 20 of the plaint certain instances have been enumerated to show that defendants 2 and 3 are not taking proper interest in the affairs of