Vipin Sanghi, J.

I.A. No. 25235/2015

1. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit to seek the following reliefs:

“i. Pass a decree of Declaration declaring the Minutes of Meeting of Constitutional Committee of Defendant no.1 dated 27.09.2015 and the recommendations of Constitution Committee dated 27/ 29.09.2015 as void, illegal and are declared as null and void and set aside;

ii. Pass a decree of declaration declaring the Minutes of Meeting of Governing Body dated 30.11.2015 of Defendant no.1 are void and are set aside:

iii. Pass a decree of declaration declaring that amended MOA as approved in General Body Meeting dated 17.12.2011 at Chennai and consequent approval of Minutes at the General Body Meeting held in Delhi are valid and that the Defendant no.1 shall be governed in terms thereof.” (Emphasis supplied)

2. While dealing with the preliminary objection of the defendant with regard to the evaluation of the suit and affixation of Court Fees on the plaint by the plaintiffs, this Court on 28.01.2016 concluded that the plaintiffs have actually sought the relief of injunction by guardedly seeking the relief that “defendant No.1 shall be governed in terms thereof”. On that basis, this Court upheld the preliminary objection of the defendant, and, consequently, at that stage, the plaintiffs under took to make up the deficiency of Court Fees.

3. By the present application moved under Order XXXIX Rules 1 to 3 CPC, the plaintiffs seek the following interim reliefs:

“(a.) Restrain the defendant No.1 and 2 from in any manner discussing either the constitutional amendments or any issue with respect to legality of amendments made to the MOA in 2011 or the minutes of meeting or recommendations of Constitutional Committee dated 27/29.09.2015 and recommendations/ minutes of Governing Body Meeting dated 30.11.2015; and/or

(b) Restrain the defendant No.2 from conducting the proceedings of General Body Meeting and from continuing as President of defendant No.1 after 31.12.2015;

(c) Further restrain defendant No.2 from conducting the affairs of defendant No.1 at the General Body Meeting to be held on 12.12.2015 and the same be conducted by a neutral person appointed as Local Commissioner by the Court as Court Observer;

(d) Restrain the defendant No.2 from terminating the membership of the plaintiffs and further restrain the defendant No.2 from preventing the plaintiffs to attend and participate in the General Body Meeting;”

4. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are renowned and eminent doctors with specialization in the field of pediatrics and neonatology, i.e. medical care of new born infants, specially the ill and premature new born infants. National Neonatology Forum (NNF)/defendant No.1 is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, which was formed in 1982 to give a voice to the requirements of specialists in the field of neonatology.

5. Plaintiff No.1 states that he is a life member of defendant No.1 since 1982, i.e. since the formation of the defendant society. He was also the President of the defendant society for two years, i.e. 2013-14. Plaintiff No.2 is a Professor of Pediatrics and Neonatology at Institute of Medical Sciences, BHU, Varanasi. He states that he is a member of the Governing Body of the defendant society from North Zone. Plaintiff No.3 is currently working as Professor in the Department of Neonatology at Lady Harding Hospital, and it appears that he is the member of the Governing Council of defendant No.1 society. Defendant No.2, it is stated, was elected as the President-Elect of defendant No.1 under the constitution, that came into force in 2012, at which time defendant No.2 was the Secretary General of defendant No.1. As per the election rules applicable to the elections held in 2012 and the results declared thereunder, defendant No.2 was elected for the post of President-Elect for the tenure for the year 2013-14, and the President for a term of one year, i.e. the year 2015.

6. The grievance of the