( 1 ) THESE two connected appeals arise out of two orders of injunction passed in a suit brought by the respondent Shri Kashi Nath Misra against the appellant L. D. Meston School Society, Ballia, for a declaration that a resolution passed by the appellant society on 21-6-1950 was "illegal, ultra vires and ineffective" and that Pt. Sita Ram Chaturvedi, Principal, of a college which is managed by the appellant society could not be asked to make over a charge of his office. The facts briefly stated are as follows :

( 2 ) THERE is a college known as Satish Chandra College at Ballia. The appellant is a society which manages the college. The society is managed by a managing committee consisting of 21 members, of whom six are life members, the collector and the principal are ex officio members and 13 are elected members. Pt. Sita Ram Chaturvedi was appointed as Principal of the college by the managing committee on probation for one year, and he took over charge on 8-7-1948. By another resolution In 1949, his term was extended for another year. On 21-6-1950 the managing committee purported to pass a resolution terminating the services of Pt. Sita Ram Chaturvedi with effect from that date. The College reopened after the summer vacations on 10-7-1950. Before it re-opened, however, and before the year for which Pt. Sita Ram Chaturvedis term of service which had been extended for one year expired, the managing committee passed another resolution on 28-6-1950 appointing Dr. Kapil Deo Upadhya as the Acting Principal of the college. It is not denied that Dr. Kapil Deo Upadhya commenced to enrol students from 1-7-1950 and otherwise to act as Principal.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff respondent, who is one of the members of the Society and who does not appear to have been present in the meeting of the managing committee on 21-6-1950, filed a suit which has given rise to these appeals on 8-7-1950, for the declaration already mentioned. He alleged that the resolution of the managing committee of 21-6-1950 was not a valid resolution for several reasons. On the same date, he moved an application for a temporary injunction. His prayer in this application was that the defendant be restrained "from taking over the charge of office from Pt. Sita Ram Chaturvedi, Principal, Satish Chandra College, Ballia. " In para. 6 of the plaint, he had stated that Pt. Sita Ram Chaturvedi was, since the time of his appointment, working as Principal of Satish Chandra College, Ballia. The plaintiff, therefore, assumed that Pt. Sita Ram Chaturvedi was still acting as a Principal and that nobody else was acting in his place.

( 4 ) THE lower Court passed an ex parte order of injunction on the same date. The order was in these terms :

"plaintiffs application for issuing interim injunction. The affidavit shows good cause. Issue injunction subject to objections by 2-8-1950".

( 5 ) ON 10-7-1950, two applications were made to the Court. One was by the plaintiff himself complaining that the injunction issued by the Court on 8th of July was not being respected by the defendant because Pt. Sita Ram Chaturvedi was not being allowed to work as Principal. Another application was made by the defendant praying that the ex parte order passed by the Court may be recalled and stating that there was no occasion for passing the order because Dr. Kapil Deo upadhya had already been appointed acting Principal of the College and that he was actually acting as such. The Court ordered the defendant to file a reply to the plaintiffs application. The defendant filed objections to the plaintiffs complaint on 15-7-1950 and stated that the facts mentioned by the plaintiff were not true, and that there had been no disobedience of the order of injunction.

( 6 ) ON 18-7-1950 the plaintiff made another application complaining that the Courts order had not yet been complied with. The Court ordered the defendant to state certain facts to make the position clear. These facts were : (1) What is the name of the official i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document