Order of injunction passed against person not named.

1. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for either side in both the revision petitions, the revision petitions are taken up today for final disposal and they are disposed of.

2. Heard Mr.K. Alagirisami senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the revision petitions, Mr.M. Venkatachalapathy, Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent in C.R.P. No. 1077 of 1999, Mr.K.V. Venkatapathi, Advocate General appearing for the 1st respondent in C.R.P. No. 1078 of 1999 and Mr.M.S. Ramesh appearing for the 3rd respondent the Returning Officer. Service of notice on other respondents is not complete. However, it is represented jointly that the revision itself could be disposed of, as it arises out of an interlocutory order passed pending the suit.

3. C.R.P. No. 1077 of 1999 has been preferred against the order dated 23. 1999 made in I.A. No. 411 of 1999 in O.S. No. 493 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchirapalli. In the said suit an injunction application has been instituted by the first respondent herein. In the suit, the plaintiff had prayed for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants especially the defendants 3 to 8 their men, servants from in any manner acting as election officer or conducting or concluding the election on 4. 1999 for various posts of Builders Association of India for the year 19992000 in any manner.

4. Pending the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 411 of 1999 in O.S. No. 493 of 1999 seeking the relief of temporary injunction restraining the respondents 3 to 8 therein from in any manner acting as election officer or conducting or concluding the election on 4. 1999 for various posts of Builders Association of India, the first defendant for the year 1999-2000 in any manner till the disposal of the suit.

.5. In the said injunction application I.A. No. 411 of 1999 the learned District Munsif of Tiruchirapalli passed the following order:

.“Heard. Documents perused Interim injunction granted till 4. 1999. Notice by then. Order 39, R1(3) to be complied with.” Initialed

.6. C.R.P. No. 1078 of 1999 had been preferred by the very same revision petitioner, who had preferred C.R.P. No. 1077 of 1999 being aggrieved by the interlocutory order passed in O.S. No. 1756 of 1999 on the file of the XIV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. One T.N. Sathyamoorthy had instituted the suit O.S. No. 1756 of 1999 on the file of the XIV Asst. City Civil Court, Chennai seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 7 from proceeding with the process of election for 19992000 for the office bearers of the 1st defendant association and for mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to nominate a new Returning Officer by removing the second defendant as Returning Officer so as to commence the election process for 1999-2000 afresh for the election of Managing Committee members inclusive of the President.

7. Pending the suit in O.S. No. 1756 of 1999, the plaintiff therein filed I.A. No. 4985 of 1999 seeking the relief of Ad interim injunction restraining the respondents 2 to 7 in the suit from proceeding with the election process for 1999-2000 for the office bearers of the first respondent Association during the pendency of the suit.

.8. On 23. 1999, the learned XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court passed the following order:

.“Heard. Documents 1 to 6 perused. I find prima facie in this case. The irregularities are to be rectified as it is alleged by the petitioner. Ad interim injunction granted till 14. 1999. Order 39 Rule-3 of C.P.C. to be complied with. Notice by then.”

9. Being aggrieved by the said two interim orders the present two revisions have been preferred by the very same petitioner invoking Article 227 of the Constitution. By separate orders, this Court, passed identical interim order, which reads thus:

“The petitioner seeks to suspend the order of interim injunction mainly on two grounds, that normally and