Allowed

Myadam Babu Rao v. Telangana Padmashali (Tps) and 6 Others

Telangana HC5 Mar 2021CMA/137/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against an ex parte interim order that stalled a society election. The Court set aside the order for lack of reasons and directed the trial court to decide the main petition within three months without grants adjournments.

What did the court decide?

The interim order staying the election notification dated 20.02.2021 is set aside. The file in O.S. No. 14 of 2021 is remanded for final decision within three months.

Myadam Babu Rao Vs Telangana Padmashali (Tps) and 6 Others — Election Law | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶5

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 137 OF 2021

¶6

Appeal Under Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C. against the order daled 2-03-2021ⁱⁿ l.A.No. 354 of 2021 in O.S. No. 14 oI 2021 on the file of the X Additional Chief Judge, City Clvil Court, Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Myadam Babu Rao, S/o. Late M.Krishnaiah,^Aged about^{64 years, Occ. Business,RJo. 1-4418'} Sastry Nagar Tirunnalgery, Secunderabad^{- 500015.}

¶9

...APPELLANT/ Respondent

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . Telangana Padmashali^{(TPS)(Registration} No.762 of^{2010),O/o. D. No 3-5-80'} Padm6shali Bhavan, Rajmohalla, Narayanaguda.^{Hyderabad,Rep,by its President} GOSHIKA YADAGIRI, Slo. Late G.Chandraiah,^{Aged about 63 years, Occ.Business.} R/o. H.No.5-44, Taramathipeta, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga^{Reddy District.}

¶12

1. Goshika Yadagiri, S/o. Late G.Chandraiah,^{Aged about 63 years, Occ. Business,} R/o. H.No.5-44, Taramathipeta, Hayathnagar^{lr,4andal,Ranga Reddy District.}

¶13

Bura Mallesham, S/o. Rajaiah,^Aged about^{68 years, Occ. Business,Fl/o.H.No.12-115,} NGO's Colony, Siddipet Town and District,^Telangana.

¶14

Jannu lvlannem, S/o. Kurumaiah, Aged about^{64 years. Occ. Business, R/o. H.No 16-2-} 386, S.S.Colony. Vasantha Nagar, Kukatpally,^{MedchalDistrict,Telangana.}

¶15

Gaddam Venkatesham, S/o. Late G.Pochaiah,^{Retd . State Govt. Employee.} R/o. H No.17-2-632 tr,4adannapet, Hyderabad.

¶16

Satish Babu Gaddam, S/o.^{Rajender, Aged about 42 yearc, Occ.Advocate,Election} Officer Telangana Padmashali Sangam,^{R/o. H.No.2-3-72913, Opp. ZindaTilishmath} Karkana, Amberpet, Hyderabad.

¶17

Akhila Bharatha Padmashali Sangam,^{(Registration No.17 of 2017), O/o. D. No.3-5-80,} Padmashali Bhavan, Raimohalla. Narayanaguda.^{Hyderabad. Rep, by its President} SRIDHAR SUNKARWAR, S/o. S.Narsihmlu.^{Aged about62 years,} Occ.^Business, Fyo. R106 - Sai Prasad Apartments, Manik^{Nagar,Taroda BK, Nanded,} Maharastra - 431605.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS/Respondents

¶19

( The Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 are not necessary parties to the CMA )

¶20

lA NO:^'l OF 2021

¶21

Petition under section 151 cPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in the} affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High court may be pleasedto suspend the} order^passed by the Hon'ble^{X Additionalchief Judge, city civil court, Hyderabadin} l.A No 354 o'f 2021 in O.P.^{No 14 of 2021 daledO2lO3l2O21}

¶22

Counsel for the Appellant:^{SRI B. SHANKER}

¶23

Counsel forthe Respondents:^{SRI D. GOVERDHANA CHARY}

¶24

The Court delivered the^{following:JUDGMENT}

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM C.M.A.No. 137 of2O2l

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

This Appeal is filed challenging |ne ex parte ord,er dated O2.O3.2O21 in I.A.No. 354 of 2O2t in O.p. No. 14 of 2021 on the fi1e of the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶28

The appellant herein is the I sr respondent in the O.p. filed by Telangana Padmashali Sangham (for short,^,the Sangham) and others to nullify the election notification dated, 2O.O2.202 1 issued by the 2nd respondent to conduct elections to the post of the President of the said Sangam. The subject I.A. was filed therein by Sangam, under Section 23 of the Telangana Registration Societies Act, 2001, to restrain the appellant herein and another from conducting election to the post of president. That I.A. was allowed restraining the respondents therein from conducting elections till 15.03.2021.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that election which was scheduled to be held on O7.O3.2O21, pursuant to the notification issued on 20.O2.2O2I, was stalled by way of a non_ speaking interim order, wherein the learned Judge except stating that the petitioners therein had made out a pimalacie case and balance of convenience, had not assigned reasons. It is well-settled that election process should not be stalled once begun, and it should allowed to be go on, hence, granting ad-interim injunction thereby virtually aliowing the O.A., at the first instance, is impermissible, argues the learned counsel_

¶30

¶31

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents Sri Govardhana Chary strenuously opposing the Appeal, raised a preliminary objection that Civil Miscellaneous^Appealisnot maintainable against an ad^{interimorderand even assuming a} Revision is maintainable, this^{Court cannot hear the same as it} lacks roster. Apart^{from that, the learned counsel assertsthat the} appellant is not^{the competent person toissueelection} notification,^{as the 2nd respondentis the Presidentelectedin 2016} with a term^{of five years andas per the byelaws of the Society' it is} the 2.d^{respondent, who alone is competent to issue the election} notification^{and the electionnotification issuedby the appellant is} totaliy^{illegai and unjust He would further contendthat new} members^{were added for the purpose of eiectionin violationof the} procedure^{prescribed for preparingvoters'list and if the eiections} are aliowed^{to be conducted' nothing would remain in the O'P '} however,^{he submits election can be continuedfrom the stage at} which^{it was stalledonce the matteris decidedon merits'}

¶32

Having^{regardto the respectivesubmissions and having} perused^{the judgmenttnMeenantalli Balo/rdlm a'Nadlapo:tla} Slrtgo^{Prr'vrrntrapart from the judgment of the SupremeCourtin} A. Venkatasubbatah^{Naidu a' S' Chellappan2" at the outset' it} is to^{be observed that the issue with regard to maintainabiliryof} the^{APPealisno longer tes integra'hence, the Preiiminary} that^{the APPeal is not} objection^{raised bYthe respondents} mainEinable^{is overruled'}

¶33

'^{rsgz(s) lLt zo}

¶34

' 1zooo1^{z scc 6ss}

¶35

¶36

In A. Venkatasubbalah JVaidu's case, the Supreme Court had given an option, however, with a caution that when there is an alternative remedy in exceptional case, the Appellate Court shall not entertain any appeal against an ex parte order. In the present case on hand, admittedly, elections are to be held on O2.O3.2O27 and the interim order came to be passed on O2.O3.2O21, certified copy of which was made available to the appelant on 04.03.202r. Though the appellant complains that Order 39 Rule 3 CpC was not complied with, this Court is not required to enter into that controversy except stating that in the facts of the case, it can be treated as an exception for entertaining the Appeal in view of the settled principle of law that in election matters, the Courts shall be slow in interfering with the process. There being no dispute that the election notification was issued on 2O.O2.2O20 and the O.p. was filed on 01.03.2021 only, the delay if any is on the part of the appellant, hence, it can be treated as an exception to the rule of alternative remedy and the matter can be decided as the election process has been stalled.

¶37

Since no reasons were assigned by the learned Chief Judge while issuing ad_interim injunction, except recording that there is a prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the petitioners therein and further in view of the well-settled principle of law that the election process shall not be interdicted, the order under Appeal dated 02.03.2021 is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly, set aside.

¶38

At this juncture, both the learned counsel, instead of remanding the matter for deciding the I.A. which serves no useful

¶39

¶40

purpose, pray for a direction to dispose of the O.p. within a time_ frame. In the facts and circumstances, the learned Judge shall endeavour to dispose of the O.p. itself within three months without granting adjournments to either of the parties as both the parties are anxious to settle the issue. The observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as this Court expressing any oplnlon on the merits of the matter. It is made clear that declaration of results will be subject to the final result of the O.p.

¶41

The Appeal is accordingly, allowed. No costs.

¶42

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶43

SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2 One CC to Sri D. Goverdhana Chary, Advocate (OPUC) 3 One CC to Sri. B. Shanker, Advocate IOPUCI 4 Two CD Co pies gbr

HIGH COURT

DATED:0510312021

JUDGMENT

CMA.No.137 of 2021

! 'r
s I €
1
25 t'14$ 2m1
o
*
{ OESPAtr

¶54

ALLOWING THE CMA