The

appellants

are

parties

to the suit

in

O.S.No.6422/2017 on the file of the XIV Additional City

Civil Judge, Bengaluru (for short, the 'civil Court9) and

are members of an Association called "Srinagar

Association" [for short, 8the Association9], which is

- 4 -

registered under the provisions of the Karnataka

Societies Registration Act, 1960.

2.

The first respondent has filed this suit in

O.S.No.6422/2017 for declaration that the Special

General Body Meeting and the General Body Meeting

held on 24.09.2013 and 23.10.2013, respectively are

illegal and they can have no legal sanctity, and for

declaration that the appellants would not be eligible to

contest the elections to constitute the Executive

Committee. The first respondent has also sought for

permanent injunction restraining the appellants from

contesting the elections.

3.

It is obvious from the rival pleadings and

submissions that there is definite acrimony between the

appellants and the first respondent who are members of

the Association. The first respondent alleges that the

appellants are guilty of mis-utilization of funds and

causing loss to the Association9s finances, and almost

- 5 -

consequential initiation of surcharge proceedings for

recovery of the alleged losses. The appellants, while

denying the allegations, contend that they have

commenced

certain

proceedings,

including

the

proceedings to challenge the very Enquiry Report which

is the basis for the commencement of the surcharge

proceedings.

4.

The civil Court, while considering the first

respondent9s application for direction to the second

respondent 3 the Election Officer - to withdraw the

notified elections by way of mandatory injunction under

Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, has directed the

second respondent to withdraw the Notification dated

06.04.2022 till the next date of hearing (which was on

17.06.2022) and consequentially, the election to the

Executive Committee is not held as scheduled. The

civil Court has opined that the Election Officer has

- 6 -

issued election notification without complying with the

Association9s Byelaws.

5.

Sri Devi Prasad Shetty, the learned Counsel

for the appellants, and Sri R.S.Ravi, learned Senior

Counsel for the first respondent, are categorical in their

submissions that it has been more than four years since

an Administrator is appointed by the State to look after

the Association9s affairs because of the inter se dispute

and an enquiry; in law, an Administrator can only be

appointed for a maximum period of four years. If this

remains undisputed, it becomes imperative that the

elections must be held for due constitution of the

Association9s Executive Committee. This reason should

have prevailed with the civil Court to refuse the

application or dispose of the application with suitable

directions to ensure that the Executive Committee is

duly constituted. Therefore, this Court must interfere.

- 7 -

6.

Both Sri R.S. Ravi and Sri Devi Prasad

Shetty, submit that they would not oppose the elections

being held for constitution of the Executive Committee

and necessary directions could be issued. However, Sri

R.S. Ravi submits that the appellants cannot be

permitted to contest the elections given the nature of

the allegations and the proceedings against them, and

he also submits that if the appellants are to be

permitted to contest the elections, they must be put on

terms such as directing them to deposit a sum of

Rs.35,00,000/-, which is allegedly misappropriated/

mis-utilised.

7.

The

question

of

appellants9

right

to

participate in the elections to the Executive Committee

will have to necessarily be decided in the suit after trial

because the first respondent has sought for declaration

against their participation in the elections relying upon

an Enquiry Report. When queried, neither Sri R.S. Ravi

- 8 -

nor Sri Devi Prasad Shetty can draw the attention of

this Court to any Byelaw that enables disqualifying a

members/ a former member from contesting elections

on