IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2010 / 17TH POUSHA 1931 RSA.No. 1363 of 2009() ---------------------- AS.74/2007 of DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI OS.162/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS 1 AND 2:- ----------------------------------------- 1. THACHAPARAMBAN MOIDEEN AHAMMED, S/O. MOIDEN, INDIANOOR, KOTTAKKAL AMSOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISRICT. 2. PALAKKAPARMBIL AYYAPPN @KUNHUTTY S/O. VELAYAUHAN, PRAVITHA NIVAS, INDIANOOR, KOTTAKKAL AMSOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL SRI BABU S NAIR RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 1 AND 2:- -------------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA PRADESH CONGRESS COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS STAT PRESIDENT, INDIRA BHAVAN, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT CONGRESS COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT PRESIDENT, UPHILL, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- R.S.A.No.1363 of 2009D --------------------------------------- Dated this 07th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Appellants claim to be effective members of the Indian National Congress party in Malappuram district. Their grievance is that though the Constitution (Ext.A2) of the party provided for election at different levels no election is being conducted in the party, and instead to appease groups and persons office bearers are being selected at the whims and fancies of the leadership. On 20-06-2005 appellants asked respondent No.2, president of District Committee of the party to conduct election in that district in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Respondent No.2 however proposed selection of office bearers. Appellants apprehended that respondent No.2 might select the office bearers as against the provisions of the Constitution and hence sought for decree for prohibitory injunction against such selection. Respondent No.1, president of the State Committee of the party did not contest the suit. Respondent No.2 contested the suit claiming that the suit itself is not maintainable since the Constitution of the party provided for redressal of grievance of its members and also made it clear that civil suit is not maintainable. It is also contended that it is not a case of office bearers being selected as alleged by the appellants and that election of office bearers in the district were over R.S.A.No.1363 of 2009 2 by 17-06-2005. Trial court found that the suit is maintainable and that the process of selection of office bearers is against provisions of the Constitution of the party. Accordingly, a decree for prohibitory injunction was granted. Respondent No.2 took up the matter in appeal. First appellate court did not go into the question whether contention of respondent No.2 regarding maintainability of the suit is correct. But it held that since appellants have an equally efficacious remedy provided by the Constitution of the party there is no reason why the civil court should grant a discretionary relief in view of section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act (for short, “the Act”). In that view of the matter the appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed. That judgment and decree are under challenge urging by way of substantial question of law whether the first appellate court was legally justified in holding that Ext.A2 provided equally efficacious remedy for the appellants. Learned counsel submitted that the jurisdiction of the civil court is not ousted and as such, efficacious of the discretionary relief ought to have been granted in favour of the appellants. 2. Though the first appellate court has observed that in the matter of internal administration of private bodies like clubs etc, the civil court should not ordinarily interfere, there is no finding that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Therefore, that question does not arise for consideration in the second appeal. What is required to be considered is only whether the first appellate court is R.S.A.No.1363 of 2009 3 legally correct in holding on the facts and circumstances of the case that discretionary relief of injunction need not be granted in view of the provisions in Ext.A2, Constitution of the party and in the light of section 41(h) of the Act. 3. It is not disputed that Constitution provides for remedy by way of complaint to the higher authorities of the party to redress the grievance raised by the appellants. As pointed out by the learned District Judge, in the matter of internal administration of the bodies like the one on hand the civil court should ordinarily keep its hands off leaving the members to work out their remedy as provided by the bye- law or Constitution. Ordinarily the civil court need interfere only when such remedies have been exhausted by the parties concerned or the court finds that the remedy provided by the byelaw or Constitution is not efficacious. Section 41(h) of the Act says that when an equally efficacious remedy is available, civil court need not step in with the relief of injunction which itself is a discretionary relief. It is not the case of the appellants that they have exhausted the remedy provided by the Constitution of the party or that it is not efficacious. Moreover, the suit is merely for injunction and no declaratory relief is also prayed for. Injunction as prayed for concerned the election of the office bearers in the district in the year 2005. Respondent No.2 has contended that elections were over by 17-06-2005. Now the second appeal is sought to be admitted in the year 2010. Considering that R.S.A.No.1363 of 2009 4 also, I do not find reason to interfere with the finding of the first appellate court that the discretionary relief of injunction need not be granted on the facts of the case. That finding does not involve any substantial question of law requiring interference. The second appeal therefore is dismissed in limine. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/