IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH (29TH) DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5787 of 2010 Between: MLA’s Colony Residents Welfare & Cultural Association, by its President, K. Prabhakar Reddy … Petitioner And: K Pandarinatha Reddy & others …. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5787 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 02.09.2010 in IA No.3067 of 2010 in OP No.1433 of 2010 on the ﬁle of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application ﬁled by the petitioner herein under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondents from stopping the operation of the bank account bearing No.1612110100005002 with Andhra Bank, Banjara Hills Branch, pending disposal of the main suit, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein ﬁled OP No.1433 of 2010 against the respondents seeking declaration that the resolution passed on 11.07.2010 by the executive committee of three members as void and illegal and for declaration that the respondents are not entitled to act as oﬃce bearers and to declare the action of the respondents and requesting the Andhra Bank, Banjara Hills branch to stop operation of the account of the society is illegal and void and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from functioning or continuing as oﬃce bearers of the society and also restraining them from holding general body meeting on 01.08.2010 and other reliefs. 4. According to the petitioner-Prabhakar Reddy, who is representing the petitioner’s society, was elected as President and the ﬁrst respondent was elected as General Secretary and 2nd respondent was elected as Treasurer and one Vishnuvardhan Reddy, was elected as Joint secretary of the society by the executive committee comprising seven members and that an emergency meeting of the executive committee was held on 07.07.2010 at 9 a.m. and the Secretary and Treasurer-Respondents 1 and 2 herein avoided to attend the meeting and that various irregularities, illegalities committed by the respondents were discussed and the resolutions were passed disapproving their acts. The petitioner further states that on 13.07.2010, respondents 1 and 2 addressed a letter to the Manager, Andhra Bank, requesting the bank to stop operation of the society account till regular body is elected by the general body of the association and required resolution is passed regarding operation of the said account as the term of the executive committee expired on 31.03.2010. The bank has accordingly stopped the operation of the savings account of the society. The petitioner contends that the respondents have no right or authority to address any such letter to the bank because the entire executive committee authorized opening and operation of the said account as per the rules and regulations of the society. The petitioner therefore ﬁled IA No.3067 of 2010 seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents from stopping operation of the bank account. 5. The respondents filed counter, contending that the alleged meeting on 07.07.2010 was without notice to the members and the alleged resolution passed in the said meeting is not valid and in the meeting held on 11.07.2010 the executive committee sought to convene the general body on 01.08.2010. The respondents further alleged that the petitioner- President of the society is indulging in acts of wastage and mismanagement and that the only newly elected executive committee having mandate of the members of the society could operate the bank account and hence, they addressed a letter to the bank for freezing the account. 6. By impugned order, the learned Additional Chief Judge, dismissed the application, holding that the petitioner failed to establish any prima-facie case nor balance of convenience. Admittedly, the period of the present executive committee has expired and as per the bye-laws, the general body is to be convened for electing a new executive committee. It is stated that the general body meeting was called for on 01.08.2010. According to the petitioner, in emergency meeting of the executive committee held on 07.07.2010, a resolution was passed under Ex.P.3. Even as per the said resolution, it is only the President and Secretary or Treasurer, who are authorized to operate bank account i.e., two out of three including the President can operate the bank account, but not the President alone. The President alleges that the respondents 1 and 2-Secretary and Treasurer have committed several irregularities and they avoided to attend the meeting held on 07.07.2010. The respondents, on the other hand would contend that the said meeting was held without notice and the same is not valid, and the resolution passed in the said meeting is inoperative. The respondents would further contend that it was the President, who committed various acts of waste and damage and was avoiding to convene general body meeting for electing a new executive committee. When the term of the President of the executive Committee has already expired and general body meeting has not been convened for what ever reason for electing a new executive committee and in the face of allegations and counter allegations against one another alleging the acts of waste and damage, it is only just and proper that funds of the society have to be duly secured and safeguarded against any exploitation or misuse by any one. The freezer of the bank account would only serve the said purpose pending disposal of the main OP. In fact, one of the several reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in the main OP is to declare the act of the respondents in requesting the Andhra Bank to stop operation of the account of the society as illegal and void. By way of interim relief also, the petitioner is seeking to achieve the main relief itself, which is impermissible. As rightly held by the learned Additional Chief Judge, the petitioner has not made out any prima-facie case nor is there any balance of convenience in their favour. In the circumstances, the impugned order, refusing to grant temporary injunction prayed for does not therefore call for any interference. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 29.11.2011 bss