The court dismissed the appeals against the interim injunction, stating that no final orders had been passed, and the interim injunction was based on sound discretion and was granted for a limited period. The appellant was granted liberty to approach the learned Judge to seek vacation of the interim order.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer O.S.A. No. 220 of 2023: Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 07.11.2023 passed in O.A. No. 787 of 2023 in Civil Suit No. 181 of 2023 on the file of this Court. O.S.A. No. 221 of 2023: Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 07.11.2023 passed in O.A. No. 788 of 2023 in Civil Suit No. 181 of 2023 on the file of this Court. O.S.A. No. 222 of 2023: Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 07.11.2023 passed in O.A. No. 789 of 2023 in Civil Suit No. 181 of 2023 on the file of this Court.)

Common Judgment

R. Mahadevan, J

1. These three appeals are preferred by the appellant aggrieved by the common order dated 07.11.2023 passed by the learned Judge in O.A. Nos. 787, 788 and 789 of 2023 respectively in Civil Suit No. 181 of 2023.

2. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the aforesaid civil suit and the appellant is the defendant therein. The averments made in the suit are briefly set out hereunder:

(i) The respondent is the General Secretary of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (in short, "the AIADMK") and also the former Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu. Further, he is presently, the Leader of the Opposition in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. The defendant was previously a Member and an office bearer of the AIADMK.

(ii) Tracing the history of the party in the plaint, it is stated that the AIADMK is a recognised political party in the State of Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of Puducherry and it was registered with the Election Commission of India. The party was founded by Puratchi Thalaivar Dr. M.G. Ramachandran and after his demise, it was spearheaded by Dr. J. Jayalalithaa. On 05.12.2016, Dr.Jayalalithaa died upon which there was a split in the leadership within the party. The party was thereafter led by the plaintiff and the defendant jointly which was also recognised by the Election Commission of India by order dated 23.11.2017. The Plaintiff and the defendant continued to function as the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator from 2017 till 2021. On 01.12.2021, the plaintiff and defendant nominated Dr. A. Tamil Magan Hussain as the Interim Presidium Chairman. On the same day, the Executive Committee passed special resolutions and introduced certain amendments to the bye-laws and prominent among them are (i) the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator shall be elected by the primary members instead of the General Council; and (ii) they shall be elected jointly by a single vote i.e., they would contest under a single ticket. The Executive Council also resolved that the amendments made in the meeting shall be placed in the ensuing General Council for approval inasmuch as General Council alone had the power to amend the bye-laws. In the subsequent meeting, an election to the posts of Co-ordinator and Joint Co ordinator was announced and the plaintiff and defendant were chosen unopposed. However, in the General Council meeting held on 23.06.2022, the members of the party ecohed in one voice for the party to be spearheaded by a single leadership. On coming to know the desire of the party cadre, the defendant started creating unnecessary rift within the party. The defendant also indulged in anti-party activities which had brought disrepute to the party. In fact, at the instance of the defendant, one of the supporter by name M. Shanmugam filed Civil Suit No. 111 of 2022 for stay of the ensuing meeting to be held on 23.06.2022. This Court refused to grant an order of interim stay, which resulted in filing of O.S.A. No. 160 of 2022. When the appeal was listed for hearing on 23.06.2022, on which date, the meeting was proposed to be held, this Court observed that the meeting could proceed, but no decision thereof.