1 caa1772 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1772 OF 2010 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1432 OF 2010 Ravi Kiran Aggarwal ...Applicant vs. Matadin Kejriwal & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Atul Rajadhaksha, Sr.Advocate & Pankaj Venekar i/b Nagendra Dube for the applicant Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Sr.Adv. i/b Kalpesh Joshi for the respondent nos.8,12,15 to 21 Mr.Hemang Jariwala a/w Mr.Nikhil Rajani i/b M/s.Deshpande & Co. for respondent no.6 Mr.Vivek Phadke i/b M/s.Kaikini Phadke & Associates for respondent nos.1 to 3 CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : MARCH 4,2011 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant in this application for temporary injunction. Unsuccessful plaintiff who has been denied relief of temporary injunction by the order impugned in the Appeal has sought a drastic interim relief by this application. 2 The applicant is the original plaintiff. In a suit filed by the applicant-plaintiff, a notice of motion was taken out for temporary injunction. By the impugned order dated 23rd November 2010, the notice of motion has been dismissed. The applicant was a member to 6th respondent-club. The suit is filed for challenging the decisions of the Disciplinary Enquiry Committee taken in the meeting held on 25th June 2010 and 9th July 2010. 3 As a result of the decision of the Enquiry 2 caa1772 Committee, the applicant was suspended from the membership of the 6th respondent-club and ultimately the applicant has been expelled from the membership of the club by its managing committee on 2nd August 2010. By amending the plaint, a declaratory relief has been also claimed as regards the action of expulsion from membership. The relief claimed in the Notice of Motion was for stay of the action of expulsion and for temporary injunction restraining the respondents from preventing the applicant from acting as the member of the 6th respondent-Club. 4 Interim relief pending the final disposal of the Appeal which is sought in this application is of stay of the action of expulsion from membership taken against the applicant. The result of granting interim relief will be that the applicant will be entitled to act as a member of the 6th respondent-club. The learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant has made detailed submissions. He submitted that not only Enquiry Committee and the managing committee of the club but even the learned Trial Judge has completely ignored that to the show cause notice issued to the applicant, an interim reply was submitted by the applicant dealing with the allegations made in the show cause notice. He submitted that the Enquiry Committee as well as the Managing Committee and the learned trial Judge have completely overlooked the fact that the said reply was on record and that they have proceeded on erroneous assumption that there was no reply filed by the applicant. His submission is that a copy of the report of the Disciplinary Committee was not provided to the applicant. His submission is that there is a gross breach of principles of natural justice and therefore, interim relief will have to be granted. The learned counsel for 3 caa1772 the applicant relied upon the various decisions. 5 It must be noted here that by the impugned order the notice of motion for interim relief filed by the applicant has been dismissed by the trial Court on merits. Admittedly, there was no ad-interim relief operating during the pendency of the notice of motion. The order of expulsion passed against the applicant is operating from 2nd August 2010. There are various contentious issues involved in the appeal which will have to be decided finally. Considering the fact that the applicant was not granted any ad-interim relief by the trial Court and the notice of motion has been dismissed on merits, even before the appeal is finally heard on merits, it is not possible to grant interim relief of drastic nature which will enable the applicant to act as a member of the 6th respondent-Club. This is not a case where pending the final disposal of the appeal from order, a drastic interim relief can be granted especially when the order of expulsion is operative from 3rd August 2010. 6 Accordingly, application is rejected. Hearing of the appeal is expedited. If service of notice to all the contesting respondents is completed, Appeal shall be added to the final hearing board of the week commencing from 28th March 2011 as per its turn. 7 Pendency of this appeal will not operate as stay to the proceedings of the suit and the trial Court is free to proceed with the hearing of the suit. JUDGE