IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 09.08.2010 C.R.No.4946 of 2010 Ishwar Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus The Vishwakarma Education Society and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. N.K.Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioners. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The petitioners claim to be Secretary and Treasurer of respondent No.1- the Vishwakarma Education Society, Kath Mandi, Rohtak. The challenge in the suit is to the resolution dated 21.03.2010, whereby the powers to operate accounts were withdrawn from the petitioners. The petitioners also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 for claiming ad interim injunction for stay of the operation of the aforesaid order. Both the Courts below have dismissed the application for ad interim injunction, primarily for the reason that the petitioners have not show that if injunction is granted, the petitioners will suffer irreparable loss and injury. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the petitioners are elected Office Bearers of the Society and have a right to act as Secretary and Treasurer of the Society. The resolution passed on 21.3.2010 is illegal and against the Constitution of the Society. C.R.No.4946 of 2010 It has been found by the Courts below that as per the petitioners, the resolution is of the Working Committee, but in fact, it is a resolution of the Managing Committee. It has been further found that the petitioners do not suffer irreparable loss and injury. Apart from the fact that the petitioners do not suffer any irreparable loss and injury, I find that the petitioners can not be said to have any balance of inconvenience in their favour. Even if the petitioners were office bearers and have been removed illegally, by virtue of ad interim injunction, the suit cannot be decreed. An ad interim order is granted by the Court to protect the status of the parties. But if it has the affect of decree of the suit, such interim order cannot be granted. The affect of the resolution impugned in the suit would be that the affairs of the Society would be carried out by some other office bearers and not by the petitioners. If the petitioners succeed, the actions taken in pursuance of resolution dated 21.03.2010 will be gone into, but the defendants cannot be restrained from acting on such resolution. In view of the above, I do not find that the findings recorded by the Courts below are suffering from any patent illegality or irregularity, which may warrant any interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. 09.08.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2