The Court has the power to invalidate votes in case of tampering of ballot boxes under Rule 25(2) of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu Election Rules, 1975.

V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH.,J

1. The appeal in O.S.A.No.88 of 2011 is preferred by the applicant in A.No.1600 of 2011 in C.S.No.7 of 2011 against the order of the learned single Judge dated 21.03.2011 in negativating the claim of the petitioner to recall the Order dated 8.3.2011 invalidating all the votes polled at District Court Campus at Nagercoil and Padmanabapuram and direct the Judge-Commissioner to count the votes polled at District Court campus at Nagercoil and Padmanabapuram.

2. The appellant in O.S.A.No.98 of 2011 is the third party and a contesting candidate belonging to the said Bar who was permitted by us to prefer the Appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge.

3. The appeal in O.S.A.No.98 of 2011 is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in A.No.78 of 2011 in C.S.No.7 of 2011 dated 8.3.2011 in invalidating the entire votes polled in the ballet box of Padmanabapuram Bar Election invoking Rule 25(2) of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu Rules.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant in O.S.A.No.88 of 2011 would submit in his argument that the first respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit with four prayers, but they have been granted by virtue of an order passed by the learned single Judge on 08.03.2011 itself and if it is permitted it will bring chaos and therefore, the appellant has filed an application before the learned single Judge for recalling the orders passed on 08.03.2011, but the same was dismissed by the learned single Judge without any reasons. He would further submit in his argument that the suit has been filed for declaration, permanent injunction and for other reliefs and when all the reliefs enumerated from 1 to 3 have become infructuous, how the suit is proceeded further by appointing a Commissioner to conduct the election of the Bar Council which is ought to have been granted only after recording evidence and the learned single Judge who is to follow Civil Procedure Code has assumed jurisdiction and had appointed the Commissioner. He would further submit in his argument that disputes could be raised only by the voters and they can only file a suit for conducting any election and the suit filed by the Association will not sustain and the suit itself would go. He would also draw our attention to Rule 8 of Bar Council of India. He would further submit in his argument that Section 20 of the Societies Registration Act is a bar for filing a suit by the Society. The plaintiff cannot claim as a juristic person and Sections 20 to 22 of Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act will prohibit the plaintiff from filing any suit. He would also draw the attention of the Court to a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2003) 8 SCC 413 in between "Illachi Devi (dead) by Lrs., and others ..vs.. Jain Society, Protection of Orphans India and Others" for the said principle. He would further submit in his argument that the order passed by the learned single Judge on 08.03.2011 was in a wrong suit and such an order is not sustainable when the suit itself is not maintainable. He would further submit in his argument that the suit is of representative character and therefore a permission should have been sought for by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC so as to maintain the suit, but such a permission was not obtained by the plaintiff and on that aspect also the suit is not maintainable. He would further submit in his argument that order of the learned single Judge dated 08.03.2011, in passing directions to Commissioner to conduct the elections and based upon the said elections, passing order without giving notice to the persons concerned in invalidating the votes more than 1000 at Nagercoil and 200 at Padmanabapuram, is in total violation of the principles of natural justice. He would further submit that the learned single Judge cannot pass such an order in an interlocutory stage when it is especially a Civil Suit. The assumption of the jurisdiction in a Civil Suit cannot be p