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 -------------------------------------------- 1. T.NASIRUDEEN PRESIDENT, KERALA VYAPARI VYAVASAI-EKOPANA SAMITHI STATE COMMITTEE, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE,BANK ROAD, KALATHINKUNNU AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. KERALA VYAPARI VYAVASAI EKOPANA SAMITHI DISTRICT COMMITTEE REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT, VYAPARI BHAVAN, BANK ROAD, KALATHINKUNNU AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS ---------------------------------------------- 1. K.P.SREEDHARAN,S/O.KELAPPAN, GENERAL SECRETARY, KERALA VYAPARI VYAVASAI- EKOPANA SAMITHI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT SECRETARY, S.J.NIVAS, PANTHALAYANI AMSOM, KOTHAMANGALAM DESOM KOYILANDY TALUK. 2. P.ABDUL ASEES, S/O.ABDUL HAMEED, DISTRICT VICE PRESIDENT, KERALA VYAPARI VYAVASAI- EKOPANA SAMITHI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT COMMITTEE, PONNAMBALAM HOUSE, AREEKKAD, NALLALAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE,. 3. C.K.KUNHIMOIDEEN, S/O.SAVVA HAJI, STATE EXECUTIVE MEMBER, KERALA VYAPARI VYAVASAI- EKOPANA SAMITHI STATE COMMITTEE, CHERUVATH HOUSE, MEPPAYOOR AMSOM, KAIPPAD DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 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. 2. The suit was filed on 7.7.2010. Along with the suit, an application for temporary injunction was filed in which the respondents filed counter on 12.7.2010. On 20.7.2010, an interim order of injunction was passed restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiffs from acting as the members of the committee of the second defendant, on the basis of the suspension notices issued to them. The order passed by the trial court was challenged by the defendants in C.M.A.No.47 of 2010 on the file of the court of District Judge of Kozhikode. The said C.M.Appeal is pending. 3. Meanwhile, it is stated that the plaintiffs were expelled from the Samithi on 17.7.2010 and they were obstructed from functioning as office bearers of the Samithi. 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. 4. The court below, on a detailed consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, held that the defendants 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. 5. Sri.T.Krishnanunni, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the allegations put forward by the petitioners/defendants that the plaintiffs are running a parallel organisation and that they are acting detrimental to the interests of the second defendant Samithi were not properly taken note of by the court below. If the plaintiffs are allowed to enter into the office of the Samithi, it is most likely that they may tamper with the records or even take away those records. It is submitted that the police cannot be asked to enter into the office of the Samithi on all days, which will create great confusion in the office of the Samithi. The learned senior counsel also submitted that the order of injunction was against the implementation of the order of suspension. The petitioners were expelled from the 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. 6. Sri.Firoz, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that the defendants showed scant respect to the order of temporary injunction passed by the trial court. The defendants are bound to respect and obey the order passed by the trial court. To maintain the prestige and dignity of the court and the legal proceedings, it is necessary to implement and enforce the order passed by the trial court. 7. The court below considered all the relevant aspects. It was found that the conduct of the defendants proved that they were not inclined to obey and respect the orders passed 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. 8. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that the plaintiffs filed a caveat before the District Court and therefore, no interim order was passed in C.M.A.No.47 of 2010. It is submitted by the counsel that in the facts and circumstances of the case, a direction may be issued to the District Court to dispose of C.M.A.No.47 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