Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 55
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL
N. Lakshmana Doss
Versus
The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Department of registration & Others
C.R.P.(PD).No.3324 of 2008 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2008
Decided on: 07-01-2009
For the Petitioner:Silambannan, M/s. D. Saravanan, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, R2 & R3, Mrs. P. Shanthi Rakkappan, G.A.,R4 & R5, S. Parthasarathy, S.C. for M. Ravishankar, R6, V. Lakshmi Narayanan for M/s. S. Congious Elango, Advocates.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of proper reasoning in exparte orders of injunction and highlights the availability of concurrent remedies under the Civil Procedure Code.
Headnote:
Ad-Interim Injunction - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Registration Act - Abuse of Process of Law - Election Process - Prima Facie Case - Byelaws of the Association - Jurisdiction of the Court - Appealable Orders - Exercise of Revisional Powers - Dismissal of Civil Revision Petition
Fact of the Case:
The civil revision petitioner challenges the order of the trial Court granting ad-interim injunction in a suit filed before the XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The petitioner contends that the trial Court's order is an abuse of process of law and lacks jurisdiction due to the election process being already underway.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the trial Court's order lacked proper reasoning and that the petitioner had concurrent remedies under the Civil Procedure Code to challenge the order.
Issues: The issues revolved around the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, abuse of process of law, and the availability of concurrent remedies under the Civil Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for proper reasoning in exparte orders of injunction and highlighted the availability of concurrent remedies under the Civil Procedure Code.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was given liberty to pursue remedies under the Civil Procedure Code.
The civil revision petitioner/3rd party has filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 18.08.2008 in I.A.No.13528 of 2008 in O.S.No.5602 of 2008 passed by the XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai granting ad-interim injunction till 25.08.2008 and ordering issuance of notice to the respondents.
2. The trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.13528 of 2008, has inter alia observed that the 6th respondent/ petitioner/plaintiff has made out a prima facie case and granted ad-interim injunction till 25.08.2008 etc.
.3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/3rd party contends that the order of the trial Court in granting ad-interim injunction is a clear abuse of process of law and that the trial Court has failed to note that the cause of action has not arisen within the city of Chennai to entertain the suit and that the suit has been filed only with a malafide intention to stall the lawful election process and moreover, the trial Court has not borne in mind of the fact that in para 25 of the plaint, it is specifically averred by the 6th respondent/petitioner/ plaintiff that except defendants 1 and 2, who are no way connected with the election process of the 5th respondent association no other cause of action of jurisdiction has been made out by the plaintiff to entertain the suit before the XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and that as per clause 20(1) of the byelaw, the election process ought to have held before 30.09.2008 due to the temporary injunction which has been periodically extended on 18.08.2008, 25.08.2008, 10.09.2008, 17.09.2008 and subsequently extended to 24.09.2008 and that the order of the trial Court amounts to judicial review which cannot be made in the due process of election as per decision in 2001 (8) SCC at page 509 and after the commencement of election dated 07.07.2008, the 6th respondent/plaintiff and his associates Kalidoss, Murali filed petitions to stall the election process after the fixation of election date as 07.07.2008, decided by the Annual General Body Meeting of the Association and that no Court shall have the power to interfere in the peaceful election process as per decision in 2005 (2) CTC at page 161 and the trial Court has not taken note of the citations 2005 (4) MLJ at page 608, 2001 (8) SCC at page 509 and 1993 (4) SCC 216 and has resultantly interfered in the peaceful election process without jurisdiction and in any event, the order of the trial Court in granting ad-interim injunction is against law and a perverse one and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition to promote substantial cause of justice.
.4. It is pertinent to point out that the revision petitioner/3rd party initially filed W.P.No.21855 of 2008 before this Court praying for an issuance of writ of mandamus forbearing the second and third respondents therein from interfering in the peaceful election process which has been commenced to elect the new office bearers for the year 2008-2010 within a time frame as fixed by this Court and consequently, directing the second and third respondents to issue suitable orders immediately to 4th respondent to conduct the election on or before 30th of September as per clause 20(1) of the bye-law of the association for electing the new executive committee members and office bearers of Madurai District Tiny and Small Scale Industries Association, Madurai 20 and this Court by its order dated 05.09.2008 has directed the writ petitioner to convert the writ petition into a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and to comply with all legal formalities in this regard and accordingly, the said W.P.No.21855 of 2008 has been converted into Civil Revision Petition No.3324 of 2008.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/3rd party, in support of his contention that when once an election process has started in cooperative society elections the same cannot be stalled, cites the d
