Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Sathish Ninan, J
M.N.BHASURANGAN – Appellant
Versus
SNDP UNION CHENGANNUR – Respondent
OP(C)/328/2019
Injunction - Election Conduct - C.M.A No.40/2017 - The court vacated an interim injunction related to election conduct, emphasizing that the election had already occurred and that the validity of such elections could only be determined in the trial proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The case arose from an interlocutory application for an injunction to restrain the conduct of elections for the SNDP Union. The plaintiffs initially secured an injunction, but it was later vacated, leading to further appeals and challenges regarding election validity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that an election had been conducted while the suit was pending, and ruled that the application for injunction had become infructuous. It determined that questions of validity should be resolved in the civil suit instead.
Issues: Whether the appeal regarding the interim injunction against the election conduct was valid given the election had already occurred, and whether the matter should be addressed in the ongoing civil suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that since the election had already taken place, the injunction application was moot, and the validity of the election could be examined during the trial instead of through incidental interlocutory applications.
Final Decision: The injunction application was dismissed as infructuous, and the previous judgment was set aside.
JUDGMENT
These original petitions arise from an interlocutory proceeding for injunction relating to the conduct of election. The original petitions are by defendants 3 to 5 and the plaintiffs respectively.
2. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.4345/2017 seeking an interim order of injunction restraining the conduct of election to the SNDP Union, Chengannur. Though, originally an exparte order of injunction was granted, as per order dated 25/10/2017, the interim order was vacated and the application was dismissed. Challenging the said order, the plaintiffs filed C.M.A.No.40/2017 before the Additional District Court-IV, Kollam. As per judgment dated 25/11/2017, the learned District Judge granted an order of injunction with further directions. Aggrieved by the judgment, both the plaintiffs and the Union is before this Court.
3. Heard Sri.Sreekumar G.(Chelur), Sri.
K.N.Radhakrishnan, Sri.R.S.Kalkura and Sri.A.N.Rajan Babu the learned counsel for the respective parties, at length.
4. As noticed supra, the interlocutory application is filed seeking interim injunction restraining the conduct of election. The application was finally heard and dismissed on 25/10/2017. In C.M.A.No.40/2017, the plaintiffs had moved an interlocutory application as I.A.No.1848/2017, the prayer of which reads thus:
“To pass an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants 4 and 5 from conducting General Body Meeting and election of office bearers of the 3rd defendant Chengannur SNDP Union till the disposal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.”
5. On the said application, the appellate court, on
01/11/2017, passed the following order:
“D4 and D5 are restrained from convening the General Body Meeting of the 3rd respondent Union on 04/11/2017 and handing over charge to the new office bearers till 06/11/2017”.
6. Noticeably, though the appellants - plaintiffs sought for an injunction against conduct of election, in the order passed, the learned District Judge did not grant injunction to the said effect. That restraining the conduct of election was not in contemplation, is evident from the later part of the order which prohibits handing over of charge to the new office bearers. The said clause implies that, conduct of election was in effect sanctioned by the court and the restraint was only on the new office bearers assuming charge of office.
7. The SNDP Yogam as well as the contesting defendants do not dispute that election was conducted on 04/11/2017. The learned District Judge, without taking note of the fact that election was held, granted an order of injunction restraining the conduct of election. Further, since the plaintiffs alleged violation of Rule 40 of the byelaws, the plaintiffs were directed to approach the Yogam Council with a complaint in the said regard, in terms of the byelaws.
8. The prayer in the interlocutory application from which the proceedings arise, is only to restrain the conduct of election. The Yogam as well as the contesting defendants claim that an election was conducted. As notice supra, there was no prohibition against the conduct of election. In view thereof, the application had become infructuous. There was no occasion for the District Court to have passed an order on the said application, restraining the conduct of election. The order of injunction is liable to be vacated, and I do so.
9. No doubt, the conduct of election as well as the validity of the same is seriously challenged by the plaintiffs. However, those are matters which require detailed evidence which can be adduced only in the suit at the time of its trial. So also, the appellate court has practically relegated the plaintiffs to a proceeding under Ext.A1 byelaws, by directing the plaintiffs to file a complaint before the Yogam, to redress their grievance. When the entire issue is at large before the Civil Court, the Court is entitled to look into the rival claims and decide on the validity of election claimed to have been held. I do not think that the pla
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
