NAJMI WAZIRI

1. Two petitions of two parties are being heard and decided by this common judgment. Although the petitions were filed two years apart and in respect of two different impugned orders, the petitions were heard together for two reasons: (a) the decision of CM(M) 1067/2011 (“first petition”) is likely to have an impact CM(M) 606/2013 (“second petition”), and (b) the disputes all arise from the same dispute between substantially the same parties.

Parties to the dispute

2. Given the multiplicity of parties and the diverse titles attributable to them, for ease of reference the parties are hereinafter referred to as follows: Mr. P is the first petitioner in the first petition; his election has been impugned in the suit that gave rise to both petitions; he is also the third respondent in the second petition. Mr. S is his co-petitioner, who is also the fourth respondent in the second petition; he was the Returning Officer for the elections. Mr. V is the sole respondent in the first petition and the petitioner in the second petition; he initiated the suit that gave rise to both petitions. The Society is the first respondent in the second petition; Mr. P was elected as President to the Society. The Organisation is the second respondent in the second petition; the Society is regional component of the Organisation, which functions at three levels (national, prantiya (i.e., regional), and branch). Mr. K is the fifth respondent in the second petition; he is the President of the Faridabad Branch of the Organisation.

Proceedings

3. Although the various proceedings are not as many as the parties involved, they deserve to be recounted once. A suit, being Civil Suit no. 68 of 2011 (“Suit”), was filed by Mr. V in the Court of Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (“Trial Court”) challenging Mr. P’s election to the post of the President of the Society. It was filed on 22nd July, 2011 and an interim order was passed on 23rd July, 2011 (“first interim order”) granting certain interim relief to Mr. V. The Society, Mr. P and Mr. S filed an application (“Arbitration Application”) under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) seeking that the matter be referred to arbitration in view of clause 31G (o) in the Constitution of the Organisation (“arbitral clause”). This was rejected by the Trial Court by its order dated 8th August, 2011 (“first impugned order”), which was challenged in the first petition by Mr. P and Mr. S.

4. The proceedings in the Trial Court was initially stayed by this Court in the first petition, which was later modified and only the first impugned order was stayed. Mr. P then preferred an application under Order XXXIX rule 4 of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“Code”) for vacation of the first interim order (“Mr. P’s application”). In the meanwhile, contending that Mr. P has acted in violation of the first interim order, Mr. V filed an application under Order XXXIX rule 2A of the First Schedule to the Code (“Mr. V’s application”). By an order of 3rd March, 2012, Mr. P’s application was allowed by the Trial court and Mr. V’s application was rejected and a Court Observer was appointed (“second interim order”). Mr. V challenged the second interim order in RCA no. 14/12 (“first appeal”) in the Court of the Additional District Judge – 06 (Central), Delhi (“Appellate Court”) and Mr. P challenged the same in RCA no. 19/12 (“second appeal”) before the Appellate Court. By its order dated 19th November, 2012 (“second impugned order”), the Appellate Court rejected the first appeal and allowed the second appeal and set aside the appointment of the Court Observer. The second impugned order is the subject matter of challenge by Mr. V in the second petition.

Facts

5. The facts, apart from what is set out hereinabove, are that Mr. P was elected president to the Society by the elections held on 17th July, 2011 (“impugned elections”). Mr. V filed t