IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 29466 of 2008(G) -------------------------- CMA.52/2008 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM OS.425/2008 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- T.G.JAYAKUMAR S/O. GOPINATHAN NAIR, AGED 50 YEARS, GOURI SANKARAM, THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.P.B.SURESH KUMAR MR.LEO GEORGE RESPONDENT: --------------- RAMA VARMA CLUB, THEVALLY P.O., KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS HONORARY SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.29466 of 2008 - G --------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: i) Set aside Ext.P10 order of the Munsiff's Court in I.a.No.1968/2008 in O.S.No.425/2008 and Ext.P11 judgment in C.M.A.No.52/2008 of the District Court, Kollam. ii) Allow I.A.No.1968/2008 in O.S.No.425/2008 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kollam as prayed for. 2. The petitioner was the Honorary Secretary of the respondent-club. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner alleging misconduct and subsequently, pursuant to enquiry, an order was passed expelling him from the membership of the respondent-club. Aggrieved by the order, questioning its legality, propriety and correctness, petitioner filed Ext.P7, O.S.No.425/2008 before the Munsiff Court, Kollam and moved an application for interim injunction to keep in abeyance operation of the expulsion order. Learned Munsiff after hearing both sides found that it is not a fit case where discretion is to be exercised granting an order of injunction staying operation of the expulsion W.P.(C).No.29466 of 2008 - G 2 order as canvased by the petitioner/plaintiff. Against the order of the learned Munsiff, petitioner preferred an appeal and the learned District Judge concurring with the views formed by the learned Munsiff dismissed the appeal making it clear that the disputed questions involved in the suit have to be resolved untrammelled by any of the observations made by the learned Munsiff or the District Judge. Ext.P11 is the order passed by the learned District Judge in appeal. Petitioner has approached this court challenging Ext.P10 order passed by the learned Munsiff and Ext.P11 order passed by the learned District Judge contending that the most crucial question involved whether there was factual foundation to show that the petitioner had committed any misconduct warranting his expulsion was not considered by both the courts and as such the orders passed by both the courts are erroneous and unsustainable. Petitioner wanted this Court to look into the materials and to form an independent opinion with reference to the bye-laws of the respondent-club, Ext.P1, whether there is factual basis for the order issued by the respondent expelling the petitioner from the membership of the W.P.(C).No.29466 of 2008 - G 3 club. The learned counsel also contended that the allegations raised do not constitute misconduct sufficient enough to expel a member from the club. 2. I am afraid that the exercise requested by the learned counsel invoking extra ordinary supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the constitution of India may not be possible since such disputed questions can be resolved only in trial. It was brought to my notice by the counsel for the respondent that the case is posted in the special list for trial on 12.6.2009. Needless to point out that the learned Munsiff in trial of the suit can go into and also examine the contentions advanced by the plaintiff to assail the expulsion order passed against him as not in accordance with the provisions under Ext.P1 bye-law of the club or under law. In order to alley the expression raised by the petitioner, it is further made clear that none of the findings or opinions formed by the learned Munsiff while passing Ext.P10 order or by the learned District Judge under Ext.P11 order shall have any bearing in resolving the disputed questions involved in the suit. W.P.(C).No.29466 of 2008 - G 4 Subject to the above observation, this writ petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-