HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.262, 346, 163, 166, 167, 233, 239, 245, 250 and 251 of 2012
These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of separate, but identical orders passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, FAC III Additional District Judge, Guntur. As all the cases are identical in nature, they are heard and being disposed of together.
The petitioners were members of respondent No.1-club. Purporting to take disciplinary action against them for allegedly causing disrepute to respondent No.1-club, respondent No.3 has passed a resolution on 08.08.2010 and respondent No.4 has passed another resolution on 15.08.2008, following which proceedings, dated 24.08.2008, were issued removing the petitioners from membership of respondent No.1-club. Feeling aggrieved by the said action, the petitioners filed separate Society O.Ps., i.e., Society O.P.Nos.1346 to 1350 of 2010 before the lower Court under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001. Each of the petitioners has filed two separate I.As., for suspension of the proceedings expelling them from respondent No.1-club and also for injunction restraining the respondents from causing obstruction to their functioning as members of respondent No.1-club. By separate orders, the lower Court has dismissed all those applications.
Sri Ambadipudi Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, strenuously submitted that the orders under revision passed by the lower Court suffer from illegality. He further submitted that the lower Court has failed to consider the elements of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in disposing of the applications filed by the petitioners.
I have carefully considered these submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
For granting an order of injunction, the applicant has to satisfy the three essential elements viz., prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.
While it can be said that the petitioners established existence of prima facie case, they have failed to satisfy the element of balance of convenience. As observed by the lower Court, the expulsion of the petitioners from respondent No.1-club has taken place as far back as 24.08.2010. Since then, the petitioners have ceased to be the members of respondent No.1-club. The petitioners also failed to secure an ad interim injunction order pending their I.As. By the time the applications were disposed of by the lower Court, more than one year had elapsed since the petitioners ceased to be the members of respondent No.1-club. The very action of expulsion of the petitioners from respondent No.1-club is subject matter of the Society O.Ps filed by them, which are yet to be adjudicated.
In the light of these facts, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners failed to establish the element of balance of convenience for being granted the interim orders as sought for by them. More over, having regard to the nature of the dispute raised, the grant of interim orders would have the result of allowing the Society O.Ps at the interlocutory stage. Unless the petitioners succeed in the Society O.Ps., they may not be entitled to the reliefs as claimed in the interlocutory applications.
For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any illegality in the orders under revision passed by the lower Court.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. However, since the issue relates to denial of rights of the petitioners to continue as members of respondent No.1-club, there is need for expeditious disposal of the Society O.Ps. Therefore, the lower Court is directed to dispose of the Society O.Ps. filed by the petitioners, after hearing both the parties, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
As a sequel to dismissal of the Civil Revision Petitions, all the interlocutory applications filed by the petitioners for interim reliefs are dismissed as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
01st February 2012