JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2021 The petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.420/2021 pending on the files of Ist Additional Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam. The suit is filed by a member of the first defendant Association, challenging the General Body meeting held on 10.04.2021 and the election to the Managing Committee of the Association conducted in the General Body.

2. In the suit, the trial court passed Ext.P2 injunction order restraining the defendants 2 & 3 from assuming charge of the first defendant Association and also from taking decisions and incurring expenses, other than for the day to day affairs of the first defendant Association till 11.06.2021. In view of the general extension of all interim orders by the Full Bench of this Court, the interim order continued till

30.08.2021.

3. In their written statement, the defendants raising various contentions. At the same time, they admitted that the General Body meeting and the election under challenge was conducted without 15 days notice as stipulated in the bye-laws and stated that they had no objection in conducting a fresh election after giving 15 days notice and publishing the agenda regarding election. An interlocutory application was also filed, seeking permission of the court to conduct fresh election in accordance with the bye-laws. That interlocutory application being dismissed vide Ext.P7 order, this Original Petition is filed.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the reasons stated in Ext.P7 order are legally unsustainable, in as much as the petitioners had admitted that the election was not conducted in strict compliance of the bye-laws and had sought permission to conduct the election in a proper manner. It is submitted that as a result of the suit and the injunction order, the affairs of the Association is at a stand still and unless an elected committee assumes ofÏce, all the members will be put to prejudice.

5. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that various allegations have been raised in the suit, regarding the illegal manner in which the election was conducted and permission to conduct a fresh election during the pendency of the suit will prejudice the plaintiff. It is pointed out that the prayer to invalidate the election will be invalidated, if fresh election is permitted to be conducted.

6. Having heard the learned Counsel and having perused the plaint, written statement, the interlocutory application and the impugned order, I find no justification in denying permission for conducting a fresh election to the first defendant Association. I have arrived at this conclusion, in the light of the admission by the petitioners in the written statement and the interlocutory application, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder.

Ext.P5 – “4. However, in the light of the fact that the mandatory 15 days notice could not be given fro the AGM, the erstwhile Managing Committee which is still in ofÏce, is ready to conduct the Annual General Body as also the elections to the Managing Committee afresh, by giving proper notice and publishing the agenda for the same, in due compliance to the bye-laws, subject of course to the consent and order to be passed by this Hon’ble Court.”

The petitioners having admitted that the election was conducted without strict adherence to the provisions of the bye-laws, absolutely no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff by the conduct of a proper election. As a matter of fact, the main allegation of the petitioner is that the election was conducted without giving 15 days notice and publishing the agenda regarding election. The said allegation stands proved by the admission in the written statement. Hence, the plaintiff cannot take an obstinate stand that a fresh election cannot be conducted till the suit is decided.

7. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and permission is granted to conduct fresh election in strict compliance of the bye-law provisions. It is made clear that