1. Respondent-1 (Rajwant Singh) has filed a suit before the Court of Id. 3rd Additional District Judge, Srinagar seeking decree inter alia declaring the election to the Executive Committee of the Kashmir Chamber of Commerce and Industries (for short the Chamber) held pursuant to Notification No.16/36/C/1292 dated 8.9.2012 issued by the Secretary General of the Chamber and its result as null and void and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from acting upon the said election result in any manner. Alongside the suit, he has filed an application for temporary injunction seeking inter alia stay of election of office bearers. Herein respondents-2 to 5, who are the outgoing Office Bearers of the Chamber, are defendants in the said suit. Ld. trial Court issued notice of the suit and the application to the defendants, who caused their appearance on 3.10.2012 and sought time for filing written statement as also objections to the application. Learned Court by its order on the same day, while grating time, however, subject to objections from the other side, temporarily restrained the defendants from "taking further steps in election process including constitution of the executive committee, till next date of hearing", which was fixed for 18.10. 2012. In issuing this direction, Id. Trial Court took the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ends of justice demand such an order to be passed.

2. Appellants, who were strangers to the suit and claim to be the members having been elected to the Executive Committee of the Chamber in the election under dispute, have challenged the direction issued by the Id. Trial Court by medium of this appeal with the leave of this Court.

3. The appellants have urged mainly that the learned trial Court has passed the impugned order without jurisdiction because Civil Court has no jurisdiction to stop the completion of election process as the result of election process can be challenged only after completion of the process before a Competent Forum and that it is not permissible under law to stop the election process midway.

4. To say precisely and emphasis, the main challenge to the impugned order relates to jurisdiction of the trial Court to stop the election process and is that election process, cannot be stopped midway.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants, while taking me through the memoran#31;dum and Articles of Association of the Chamber (for short the Memorandum) and submitting that the impugned order passed by the Id. trial Court was without jurisdiction, however, has stopped short of saying as what mechanism for challeng#31;ing the election has been provided under the Memorandum and how election in question could not have been challenged before a Civil Court. Nonetheless, Id. counsel has relied upon a ruling of this Court in Shatru Jeet Singh Jamwal & Ors. v. Om Parkash Shukla & Ors., 2005(2) JKJ 1 (HC). The civil revision in that case had arisen out of an order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jammu in an application for temporary injunction in a suit, the subject matter whereof pertained to election of Purani Mandi Business Association. This Court, while dealing with the scope of issuing restraint order in respect of election process has observed:

"8. Law on the point is settled that after commencement of the election process the court should stay its hands and not interfere with the process. Reference may be made to the leading case on the subject, namely, N.P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, AIR 1952 SC 64. The said decision has been followed unanimously in umpteen cases thereafter. It is true that the decisions have been rendered in the context of Article 329 (b) of the Constitution of India or statutes containing similar provision but, in my view, same principle should govern non-statutory elections i.e. elections in private societies. The reason being that the result of election can always be challenged in accordance with the mechanism provided in t