M. N. CHANDURKAR C. J.

This revision petition is directed against a wholly unsustainable order which has the effect of divesting the petitioners of ownership of 12, 387 shares by an ad interim mandatory injunction which has been almost mechanically passed by the trial court. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the suit which the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 has filed in the City Civil Court, Madras, in which substantially the plaintiff's case is that the first and second defendants (petitioners Nos. 1 and 2) on behalf of defendants Nos. 3 to 21 (petitioners Nos. 3 to 21) in the suit had agreed to transfer to the plaintiff 16, 387 equity shares of M/s. Century Flour Mills Ltd., Madras, respondent No. 2 herein.

Respondent No. 2 herein is a public limited company, hereinafter referred to as "the company", in which admittedly defendants Nos. 1 to 20 had obtained 12, 387 shares in pursuance of an agreement between the plaintiff and defendants dated December 12, 1976. One of the terms of the agreement dated December 12, 1976, was that the first, second and third defendants were to be made directors, out of whom the first defendant was to be the full-time director of the company. Defendant No. 21 also owns 4, 000 shares in the company. According to the plaintiff, these shares were transferred to defendant No. 1 in pursuance of an agreement under which defendant No. 21 had advanced a loan to the plaintiff, and it was agreed that defendant No. 2 was to be eligible only to the interest and other benefits arising out of these shares. The plaintiff has already filed a suit, C. S. No. 453 of 1983, on the original side of this court for a declaration of ownership of those shares and an injunction has been issued to defendant No. 21 restraining him from dealing in any manner with those 4, 000 shares. That order has later been vacated, and an appeal filed by the plaintiff against the order vacating the injunction was later withdrawn.The plaintiff's case is that at the annual general meeting held on July 22, 1983, the first three defendants were not elected as directors ; and, consequently, the first defendant had automatically vacated office as whole-time director of the company. There is some dispute between the parties with regard to the meeting held on July 22, 1983, and some of the defendants, including defendant No. 21, have already filed in this court, Company Petition No. 17 of 1983.

It may be, at this stage, conveniently stated that in Company Applications Nos. 397 and 398 of 1983 in Company Petition No. 17 of 1983, by an order dated August 22, 1984, a learned single judge of this court has held that no valid annual general meeting was held on July 22, 1983, and that petitioners Nos. 1, 5 and 6 in the company petition, who are defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the suit, continued to be the directors as per the unamended article 97. The learned judge has further held that since there was no annual general meeting on July 22, 1983, the term of directors had to be reckoned from September 30, 1982. Accordingly, the learned judge made an order that the respondents in the company petition would be restrained by an injunction from interfering in any manner with the three defendants functioning as directors of the company, and the first defendant discharging his duties as a whole-time director of the company. A further injunction was issued against the first respondent in the company petition from convening or holding meeting of the board of the first respondent-company without due notice in writing by registered post to petitioners Nos. 1, 5 and 6 in the company petition. It appears that after this order was passed by the learned single judge, the suit came to be filed on September 6, 1984, in which, surprisingly, no reference has been made to the order of the learned single judge, but averments have been made to the contrary that the three defendants have ceased to be directors of the company. However, the substantial relief whi