The High Court of Kerala dismissed a civil revision petition challenging a trial court's order granting police assistance to plaintiffs expelled from an association. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision to enforce a temporary injunction, finding the defendants liable for disobepong court orders.
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN
TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932
CRP.No. 38 of 2011()
-------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.No.3165/2010 IN OS.414/2010 OF PRL.M.C.KOZHIKODE-I
REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS
BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN
RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS
ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ FOR R1 & 2
SMT.M.SHAJNA FOR R1 & 2
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
C.R.P.No.38 of 2011
Dated this the 8th day of February, 2011
O R D E R
The respondents filed O.S.No.414 of 2010 on the file of
the court of the Principal Munsiff-I, Kozhikode, for a declaration that the notice dated 29.6.2010 which was issued on 2.7.2010 is illegal and for an injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiffs from acting as members of the elected committee of the second defendant. According to the plaintiffs, they are the elected members of the Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi, Kozhikode District Committee. According to the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff was working in various capacities for the last 28 years in the second defendant organisation. Likewise, the other plaintiffs also have been working in the Ekopana Samithi for the last several years. As per the
C.R.P.No.38/2011
2
notice dated 29.6.2010, the plaintiffs were suspended from the Ekopana Samithi, which was challenged in the suit.
C.R.P.No.38/2011
3
The plaintiffs filed I.A.No.3165 of 2010 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for affording police assistance to enable them to continue to function as office bearers of the second defendant Samithi. The application was opposed by the petitioners on the ground that the plaintiffs were expelled from the second defendant Samithi and therefore, they are not entitled to enter into the office of the Samithi. It was also contended that the plaintiffs are acting against the interests of the Ekopana Samithi and they are running a parallel organisation. If the plaintiffs are allowed to enter into the office of the second defendant Samithi, it is most likely that they will manipulate the records or take away the records of the Samithi causing great prejudice to the Samithi.
C.R.P.No.38/2011
4
were not justified in preventing the plaintiffs from entering into the office and acting as office bearers. The court below took note of the fact that no interim order was passed in C.M.A.No.47 of 2010 and therefore, the defendants were bound to comply with the temporary injunction order passed by the trial court. It was also found that without the aid of the police, the plaintiffs may not be able to discharge their duties in terms of the order in I.A.No.2279 of 2010 (application for temporary injunction). The trial court held that the contentions raised by the defendants would clearly indicate that they will not permit the plaintiffs to function as office bearers of the second defendant. In these circumstances, the court below allowed the application and the plaintiffs were permitted to approach the Station House Officer, Nadakkavu Police Station for necessary police aid in case it is necessary. Directions were issued to the police to render necessary aid to the plaintiffs. The order dated 7th January, 2011 in
C.R.P.No.38/2011
5
I.A.No.3165 of 2010 is under challenge in this Original
Petition.
C.R.P.No.38/2011
6
Samithi later which was not challenged in the suit. The petitioners having been expelled from the Samithi, they cannot get the order passed in the application for injunction enforced and thereby make the order of expulsion inoperative.
C.R.P.No.38/2011
7
by the court. To implement the order passed by the court below, it was found necessary that the necessary police aid should be afforded to the plaintiffs. The court has ample power to enforce the order passed by it. No party should be permitted to disobey the orders passed by the civil court nor should they be allowed to act in a manner which would defeat the order passed by the civil court. The court below was fully justified in passing the order impugned. There is no jurisdictional error or error of law warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
C.R.P.No.38/2011
8
of 2010 at the earliest so that there would be no further confusion in the matter. The respondents/plaintiffs have no objection for an early disposal of C.M.A.No.47 of 2010. The learned District Judge shall make every endeavour to dispose of C.M.A.No.47 of 2010 at the earliest.
For the aforesaid reasons, the C.R.P. is dismissed.
K.T.SANKARAN
JUDGE
csl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order allowing police assistance to plaintiffs expelled from an association to enforce a temporary injunction.
Whether the High Court is justified in dismissing the revision petition which challenges the order granting police aid despite allegations of expulsion and running a parallel organization.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
T.Nasirudeen
Kerala Vyapari VyavasaieKopana Samithi State Committee
Kerala Vyapari VyavasaieKopana Samithi District Committee
K.P.Sreedharan
P.Abdul Asees
K.T.Sankaran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
