JUDGMENT

I.A. 1241/2020 (delay of 37 days in filing addl. Counter affidavit)

1. In view of the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 37 days in filing additional counter affidavit is condoned.

2. Application is disposed of.

CS(OS) 576/2018

3. The present suit was filed in representative capacity by 13 plaintiffs, i.e., Carrom Associations of Haryana, Tamil Nadu, Hyderabad, Mizoram, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Rajasthan, Kerala, Orissa, Pondicherry, Punjab and Gujarat impleading All India Carrom Federation (in short AICF), Rakibul Hussain, V.D. Narrain, P.S Bachher, Mahesh Sekhri, Mukul Kumar Jha, Dinanath Pilarnekar, Prem Dass and P.S. Datta as defendants No.1 to 9.

4. In the suit, plaintiffs have prayed for a decree of declaration declaring that the Electoral College published by defendant No.1/(AICF) on 4th November, 2018 as illegal, null and void; declaring that the order dated 10th November, 2018 passed by defendant No.1 along with the list of valid nomination as illegal, null and void, mandatory injunction directing defendant No.1 to include the names submitted by the plaintiffs to defendant No.1 for preparation of Electoral College, decree of permanent injunction directing defendant No.1 to constitute a proper valid Electoral College and hold elections for the post of office bearers of defendant No.1 strictly in accordance with Sport Code and rules and regulations of defendant No.1, injunction restraining the defendant No.3, 5 to 8 from contesting the elections to be held on 18th November, 2018. The plaint was filed by S.K. Sharma claiming to be the authorized representative of all the plaintiffs.

5. The suit came up for hearing before this Court on 14th November, 2018 when summons in the suit were issued to the defendants returnable on 22nd January, 2019. In I.A. 15492/2018 seeking ex-parte ad-interim injunction, this Court while issuing notice for the date fixed, permitted the election to be held on 18th November, 2018, however, directed that the representatives of the plaintiffs shall be allowed to cast their vote separately, which shall be kept in a sealed cover and that the result of the election shall be subject to further orders that may be passed by this Court. Defendant No.1 and 7 were also directed to ensure that the complete record of the election including the electoral list, ballot papers are duly preserved and kept in a sealed cover for scrutiny of the Court, if so required. Further, I.A.15653/2018 was filed by the plaintiffs which came up for hearing on 16th November, 2018, inter alia, praying directions to defendant No.1 to 9 to accept and include candidates nominated by the plaintiffs in the List of Nominated Candidates for contesting the elections on 18th November, 2018 and include their names in Form-4. On the said application, this Court passed the ex-parte ad-interim order directing that the candidates nominated by the plaintiffs be also allowed to contest the forthcoming elections. This Court reiterated that all votes cast by the plaintiffs would be kept in a sealed cover.

6. The defendant No.1 and 4 entered appearance, and on 27th March, 2019, learned counsel for the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and 4 stated that the suit can be disposed of based on the pleadings and the documents on record. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 stated that he is supporting the stand taken by defendant No.4 in the written statement. Subsequently, defendant No.3 also appeared in person, who also adopted the written statement of defendant No.4. Since none had appeared for defendants Nos.2, 5, 6 and 9 despite service, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 16th September, 2019.

7. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs stated that he does not seek any relief against defendant No.7 and 8 and they be deleted from the array of parties. Accordingly, defendant No.7 and 8 were deleted from array of parties and an amended memo in this regard was filed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Consideri