IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1932 OP(C).No. 784 of 2011(O) ------------------------ PETITIONERS : ------------------------- 1. RAJU C.RAPHAEL, S/O. CHIRAYATH PUTHUR LATE RAPPAI, KIZHAKKUMPATTUKARA DESOM, PERINGAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. PIOUSE AKKARA, S/O.AKKARA LATE ANTHAPPAYI, VARANDARAPPILLY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. PAUL VAZHAKKALA, S/O.VAZHAKKALA OUSEPH, OLLUR DESOM, EDAKKUNNI VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 4. M.V.POULOSE, S/O.MUZHAVEETTIL VARGHESE, NADATHARA DESOM AND VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 5. SABU VATTAKUZHY, S/O.VATTAKUZHY LATE GEORGE PLOT NO.14, C.V.KOCHINNY ROAD, KUTTANELLUR, MARIYAPURAM DESOM, OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 6. SIVADASAN K.M., S/O.KUNDOLY MADHAVAN, KUTTANELLUR DESOM, OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 7. T.V.CHANDRAN, S/O.THOTTIPARAMBIL LATE VALAPPAN, KUTTANELLUR DESOM, OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 8. N.P.RAJAPPAN, S/O. NADUVIL VALAPPIL LATE PAPPUKUTTAN, KUTTANELLUR DESOM, OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. REGENCY CLUB, KUTTANELLUR, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESENT SECETARY, T.R.VIJAYAKUMAR, PIN 680 014. OP (C) 784/2011 2. JOSSY CHANDY, PRESIDENT, REGENCY CLUB, KUTTANELLUR, THRISSU0R, PIN 680 014. 3. T.R.VIJAYAKUMAR, SECRETARY, REGENCY CLUB KUTTANELLUR, THRISSUR, PIN 680 014. ADV. SRI.C.CHANDRASEKHARAN FOR R1 TO 3 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : EXT.P1: DATED NIL, TRUE COPY OF THE RULES AND BYE-LAWS OF THE REGENCY CLUB. EXT.P2: DATED 19.1.2010, TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE. EXT.P3: DATED 22.5.2010, TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.1633 OF 2010, ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P4: DATED 14.6.2010, TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION I.A.NO.5228 OF 2010 IN O.S.NO.1633 OF 2010, ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P5: DATED 18.11.2010 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL COUNTER IN I.A.NO.5228 OF 2010 IN O.S.NO.1633 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P6: DATED 30.6.2010 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT IN O.S.NO.1633 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P7: DATED 25.11.2010 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.5228 OF 2010 IN O.S.NO.1633 OF 2010, ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P8: DATED 11.2.2011 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.M.A.NO.13 OF 2011 I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P9: DATED 25.1.2011 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.784 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners filed O.S.No.1633 of 2010 on the file of the court of the Munsiff of Thrissur against the respondents for a declaration that the amendments brought into the bye-laws of the first defendant club in the meeting held on 13.2.2010 are illegal, unsustainable and without any force. There is also a prayer for consequential injunction. The plaintiffs filed I.A.No.5228 of 2010 for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from implementing the amended bye-laws. 2. A Commissioner was appointed by the trial court who submitted a report after perusal of the records of the meeting. The trial court, after considering all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, held that the suggested amendments to the bye-laws, with the changes suggested O.P.(C) No.784/2011 2 by some of the members were passed unanimously by the members who attended the meeting. Therefore, it was held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get an order of temporary injunction. The plaintiffs challenged the order of the trial court in C.M.A.No.13 of 2011 on the file of the court of the First Additional District Judge, Thrissur. The appellate court confirmed the order passed by the trial court. The order and judgment referred to above are under challenge in this Original Petition. 3. Sri.P.B.Krishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the election of the office bearers and executive committee members is scheduled to be held on 27th February, 2011. It is submitted that there are 1480 members in the club and if the amended bye-laws are implemented, only 381 members would be eligible to vote at the election. It is submitted that such an election would not result in a democratic set up in the club and therefore, the orders passed by the court below are liable to be interfered O.P.(C) No.784/2011 3 with. 4. Sri.Chandrasekharan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the order and the judgment passed by the courts below do not call for any interference. The courts below considered all the relevant aspects to be taken note of while considering the application for temporary injunction and arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get the discretionary relief of temporary injunction. It is submitted that the findings are findings of fact and the petitioners are not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to upset the concurrent findings of the fact. Sri.Chandrasekharan also submitted that all the members could be allowed to vote, provided they pay the necessary subscription as per the amended bye-laws at any time before 1 P.M. on 27.2.2011. This submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents is just and reasonable. O.P.(C) No.784/2011 4 5. On going through the order and the judgment passed by the courts below, I do not find any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the fact. At the same time, the grievance of the petitioners that more than 3/4th of the members of the club would not be able to exercise their franchise is a matter to be taken note of. However, the grievance of the petitioners would be redressed, if the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents is accepted. Accordingly, the Original Petition is disposed of as follows : (a) The order dated 25.11.2010 passed by the trial court in I.A.No.5228 of 2010 in O.S.No.1633 of 2010 and the judgment dated 11.2.2011 in C.M.A.No.13 of 2011 do not call for any interference except to the limited extent mentioned below. (b) All the members of the Regency Club, Kuttanellur, Thrissur, who pay the subscription in accordance with the O.P.(C) No.784/2011 5 amended bye-laws at or before 1 P.M. on 27.2.2011 shall be entitled to exercise their votes in the election scheduled to be held on 27.2.2011 or on any other postponed date. (c) The payment of subscription would not disable the plaintiffs or any member supporting them from putting forward their contentions in O.S.No.1633 of 2010. In other words, payment of subscription as per the amended bye-laws would not make the suit infructuous. (d) Payment of subscription as per the amended bye- laws by any member under protest will be separately kept in the account and the respondents shall submit the details thereof before the trial court within a period of two weeks. (e) The suit shall be disposed of untrammelled by any of the observations and findings in the order and judgment impugned in this Original Petition. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl Hand over copy to both sides.