Both these writ petitions are filed by the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.163 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Kannur. The 2nd defendant was the erstwhile Secretary of the Kannur Branch of the Indian Medical Association. The common respondents 1 to 3 in both the writ petitions are defendants 3 and 4 and plaintiff respectively. The 4th respondent is the parent body of the 1st defendant, who is not a party to the suit. The 1st and 2nd respondents got themselves impleaded in the suit as additional 3rd and 4th defendants. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff and defendants as ranked in the suit except in the case of the 4th respondent, who is not a party to the suit, and, hence, referred hereinafter as the 4th respondent as such.

2. The above suit O.S.No.163 of 2007 was laid before the court below alleging that election to the Kannur Branch of the Indian Medical Association, manned by the 2nd defendant as Secretary, was overdue for the last few years, and so much so, the 2nd defendant should be directed to declare the election for the Association in the year 2007-08. With the 1st and 2nd defendants in the suit remaining absent, on an interlocutory application moved by the plaintiff, the court below passed an order directing the 2nd defendant to conduct the election. At that stage, two members of the Association moved an application to get themselves impleaded as additional 3rd and 4th defendants contending that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with the 2nd defendant. Their impleadment being allowed, as additional 3rd and 4th defendants, they filed a joint written statement in which the status of the 2nd defendant as Secretary of the Association was impeached contending that an Adhoc Committee formed is manning the affairs of the local branch. Those defendants also raised a counter claim to declare all acts done by the 2nd defendant as Secretary of the Association after 10.9.2005 as void. The election of the office bearers of the Association ordered on the application moved by the plaintiff and conducted by the 2nd defendant was impeached as having been conducted without complying with the provisions of the bye-laws of the Association. The 3rd and 4th defendants had moved a writ petition as

W.P. (C).No.16489 of 2007 before this Court impeaching the correctness and propriety of the election conducted to the Association, and, pursuant thereto, by an interim order in that writ petition, the court below appointed an Advocate Commissioner as a returning officer to conduct the election, after arriving at a conclusion that the previous election held was not properly conducted. During the pendency of the above writ petition, before the election could be held under the auspices of the Advocate Commissioner, which in fact still remains to be completed, some events transpired, and that eventually led to passing of some orders by the court below in the suit, which are at present challenged in these two writ petitions. After an Advocate Commissioner was appointed as the returning officer to conduct the election, the plaintiff reported that he is not eager to prosecute the case and not pressing the suit. Withdrawal of the suit when the writ petition was pending, as aforesaid, being objected to by the 2nd and 3rd defendants this Court disposed of the writ petition issuing some directions vide Ext.P5 judgment. The court below was directed to examine whether the permission to withdraw the suit is allowable especially when a counter claim had been raised by the additional 3rd and 4th defendants in the suit and also in view of the orders passed by the court appointing an Advocate Commissioner as returning officer to conduct the election. After disposing of the writ petition as above, additional 4th defendant moved an application to transpose him as the plaintiff in the suit, who by seeking withdrawal was stated as abandoning the suit. Transposition so sought b