The court affirmed limited jurisdiction in internal society matters, emphasizing that injunctions require a clear balance of convenience and irreparable harm, which were not established.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Ditul Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. J Roy, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S Sarma appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 6.

2. The petitioner herein has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 10.10.2023 passed in Misc. Appeal No.4/2021 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 08.12.2021 passed in Misc.(J).Case No.212/2021 by the learned Munsiff No.3, Kamrup(M) Guwahati was upheld.

3. The question which arises in the instant proceedings is as to whether this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction should entertain the instant proceedings.

4. The materials on record reveals that the petitioner herein as plaintiff claims to be a member of the respondent No.1 who was elected as the General Secretary of the 24th No. Kendriya Sishu, Juva and Al Matri Samaroh. It is the case of the plaintiff/petitioner that the petitioner on successfully concluding the Samaroh filed the audit report of the Samaroh to the respondent No.1 herein as per Article 18 of the Constitution of the respondent No.1, detailing the expenses of the Samaroh. It is the further case of the petitioner that thereafter the respondent No.3 herein had withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,59,500/- out of the said balance of the Samaroh. Subsequent thereto, the respondents No.3 issued notice to the petitioner through the respondent No.5 seeking re-scrutiny of the Samaroh and demand the records and documents relating to audit. The specific case of the petitioner is that such re-scrutiny of the audit is not permissible as per the Constitution of the respondent No.1 and the General Secretary of the respondent No.1 had no power to do so. On the said basis, the title suit was filed being Title Suit No.244/2021 before the Court of the learned Munsiff No.1 Kamrup(M) at Guwahati which was subsequently endorsed to the Court of the learned Munsiff No.3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. Along with the said suit, the plaintiff had also filed an injunction application which was registered and numbered as Misc.(J) Case No.212/2021, whereby the petitioner sought for an ad-interim temporary injunction restraining the respondents herein from passing any order and/or taking a resolution to “Songharohito”, i.e., black-list/boycott the petitioner as proposed in the letter dated 25.02.2021.

5. The record further reveals that the learned Trial Court vide an order dated 07.04.2021 passed an ex-parte order directing to maintain status-quo till the disposal of the said injunction application so that the determination that was made in the main Title Suit are not frustrated. Subsequent thereto, the respondents appeared and filed their written statement as well as the written objection.

6. The case of the respondents in the written objection as well as the written statement is that the petitioner had submitted incomplete and wrong audit reports and the Executive Committee after perusal of the reports had issued letters to the petitioner seeking relevant documents for re-verification of the audit, but the petitioner had not paid any heed to the same. It was the further case of the respondents that vide the letter dated 25.02.2021 there was no mention of the fact that the petitioner would be black listed and the actual word used was “Songharohito” which means temporary suspension till the preliminary disciplinary action is carried out. The respondent also stated that the Sangha has no provision of black listing/boycotting. It is under such circumstances, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the suit as well as for rejection of the injunction application.

7. After filing of the written objection, the learned Trial Court heard the injunction application and vide an order dated 08.12.2021 came to a categorical opinion that the petitioner had a prima facie case. However, taking into account that the respondents herein had only