AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-
Both the appeals are admitted and are being taken up for hearing in view of the short questions involved.
Both the matters arise out of a suit for a declaration that the defendants are duty bound to act in a manner to ensure that the elections of the members of the Council, including that of the President, are done in a manner upholding the letter and spirit of the bye-laws, rules and regulations and the Royal Charter of the defendant no. 2/organization, namely, the Institution of Engineers (India), for mandatory injunction directing the defendants and the Council members to prevent breach of their obligations in ensuring free and fair elections of the organization as per the rules and bye-laws of the said organization, for receiver and for other consequential reliefs.
In the said suit, the plaintiff/appellant filed two interlocutory applications; one seeking temporary and ad interim injunction directing the defendants to act in a duty bound manner to ensure that the elections of the members of the Council, including that of the President, are done in a manner upholding the letter and spirit of the bye-laws, rules and regulations and the Royal Charter of the said organization, for further injunction directing the defendants and the Council members to prevent breach of their obligations in ensuring free and fair elections of the said organization as per the rules and bye-laws of the said organization, and injunction directing the defendants to conduct the upcoming presidential election in a fair and just manner.
In the second application, a receiver in the form of a “scrutinizer” was sought to be appointed to oversee the conduct of such elections.
By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge dismissed both the applications at the ad interim stage itself, primarily on the ground that nowhere in the plaint or in the temporary injunction application , there is any averment regarding the status of the plaintiff/appellant in the defendant no. 2/organization.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant argues that, in the plaint, in particular paragraph nos. 34 and 36 thereof, there is sufficient indication of the locus standi of the plaintiff as a member of the defendant no. 2/organization.
It is further submitted that from the papers filed along with the plaint , read in conjunction with the averments made therein, it would be evident that the plaintiff is a member of the organization and as such, has a vital interest in the elections thereof.
Learned senior counsel further submits that in view of the serious nature of the allegations levelled against the defendants, it would only be appropriate if a scrutinizer was appointed to oversee the elections.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in order to avoid unnecessary delay in the elections, which are overdue, the respondents do not have any objection in principle if a scrutinizer is appointed.
Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel having instructions to appear on behalf the proposed intervener, submits that the said intervener is the Chairman of the West Bengal State Centre of the organization-in-question and has a vital interest in the matter.
Accordingly, it is submitted that the said person be heard in connection with the appeal.
Insofar as the prayer for intervention is concerned, we find that at the present juncture it would be premature for this Court to permit such intervention without any averment being made on oath by the proposed intervener as to his interest in the subject matter of the suit/appeal and his locus standi in that regard.
Accordingly, we grant liberty to the proposed intervener to take out a formal application for addition of party before the Trial Court which will be heard by the Trial Court in accordance with law on its own merits, upon giving opportunity of hearing to the parties to the suit.
It is clarified that such liberty shall not be construed as a direction on the learned Trial Judge to allow such application.
Insofar as the merits of the case are concerned, we find from the averments made in paragraph nos. 34 and 36 of the plaint that the plaintiff/appellant has categorically alleged therein that he has valuable rights as a member, along with other members of the defendant no. 2/organization, and has the right to have a free and fair election of the said organization, which has allegedly been invaded and hampered by the defendants.
It has further been averred that the right of the plaintiff and other members of the said organization for having free and fair election of the members of the Council are being denied by the def endants, thereby clearly implying that the plaintiff is also one of the members of the organization, thus prima facie having a locus standi to have legitimate grievances against the malfunctioning of the organization, if substantiated by the plaintiff.
Accordingly, we find that the learned Trial Judge ought to have decided the applications for temporary injunction and appointment of scrutinizer under Order XL Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure on merits, upon giving opportunity of hearing to both parties.
However, although the respondents might, in principle, have no objection to the appointment of scrutinizer, such appointment will be in the nature of an order appointing receiver, for grant of which higher standards and tests than those for grant of injunction, as contemplated under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code, have to be met on facts as well as law by the plaintiff before such an order is passed.
In our opinion, sitting in appeal against an order whereby the applications for temporary injunction and appointment of scrutinizer were rejected at the threshold, without even entering into the merits of the same at the ad interim stage, it would only amount to usurpation of the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Judge if we take up the adjudication of either of the applications on merits.
However, since we find that the nature of the prayer of ad interim injunction is innocuous, to the effect that the elections of the respondent no. 2/organization are sought to be held in accordance with the rules, bye-laws and regulations of the defendant no. 2/organization, ad interim protection ought to be given in that regard till the injunction application and the scrutinizer application are decided on merits by the learned Trial Judge.
In the light of the above observations, FMAT No. 348 of 2026 and FMAT No. 349 of 2026 are allowed, thereby setting aside the impugned order, bearing Order no. 1 dated August 28, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fourth Court at Alipore, District-South 24 Parganas in Title Suit No. 1293 of 2026, and remanding the temporary injunction application as well as the application under Order XL Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the Trial Court for the purpose of adjudication of the same on merits, upon giving opportunity of hearing and to file their respective written objections to the said applications to the defendants.
Such written objections shall be filed by tomorrow in terms of th e prayer made before this Court in that regard on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
The injunction application and the receiver application shall be disposed of on merits as expeditiously thereafter as possible, preferably within a week thereafter.
The learned Trial Judge as well as the parties shall act on the written communications of the parties, coupled with a server copy of this judgment, as downloaded from the official website of this Court, for the purpose of compliance.
Till disposal of the injunction application, the defendants/respondents shall remain restrained by an order of injunction from holding the election in respect of the respondent no. 2/organization in violation of the rules, bye-laws and regulations of the respondent no. 2 in any manner whatsoever.
It is made amply clear that such restrictions shall not prevent the respondent from conducting the oncoming election in accordance with the rules, bye-laws and regulations of the respondent no. 2.
We reiterate that the proposed intervener in the present appeal shall be at liberty to file an application for adding himself as a party to the suit, subject to the same being decided by the learned Trial Judge in accordance with law.
Needless to say, we have not entered into the merits of the contentions of the parties; it will be open for the learned Trial Judge to decide both the applications and the suit on their own merits in accordance with law.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.
I agree.