N.K. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) This is a petition for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.8.2004 passed in Misc. Case No. 161 (C) of 2004, Ashok Kumar Garg v. Col. Manbeer Chaudhary and others as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.
(2.) The opposite parties No. 2 and 3 filed Suit No. 738 of 2003 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow challenging the election of the Managing Committee held at Delhi on 22.9.2003 with an intention to obtain a decree of declaration and permanent and mandatory injunction. The opposite parties No. 2 and 3 also made a prayer for re-election. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow without considering the question as to whether the jurisdiction lies at Lucknow or not Issued notices to the defendants and passed ex-parte injunction order on 20.12.2003 restraining the defendants in the suit from taking any policy decision and from mis-using the funds of the Association. The petitioner being defendant appeared in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow and filed the written statement raising preliminary objection that the suit was not maintainable and moved an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for vacating the ex-parte injunction. The said Suit remained pending for long. One year's term of the Managing Committee elected on 22.9.2003 was going to expire and 53rd Annual General Meeting of the Company was going to take place. The opposite parties No. 2 and 3 filed Misc. Case No. 161-C of 2004 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow under Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking initiation of the proceedings under the aforesaid provisions against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner by calling. Extra Ordinary General Meeting at Jallandhar had disobeyed and violated the interim injunction dated 20.12.2003. In these proceedings, the opposite parties No. 4 to 6 were also impleaded although they were not parties to the suit. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow without determining the question of jurisdiction passed further injunction restraining the petitioner from holding 53rd Annual General Meeting by the impugned order which has been sought to be quashed in this writ petition. At the time of admission of the writ petition, this Court passed an order. The relevant portion of the order is as follows : "Prima facie, it appears that no injunction can be granted to restrain any election as provided in the U.P. Amendment under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the impugned order dated 20.12.2003 passed in Misc. Case No. 161-C of 2004 is stayed till further orders. However, the result of the election shall be subject to the final decision. It is further made clear that the 53rd Annual General Meeting scheduled to be held on 3.9.2004, shall be conducted according to the rules of the Association. The only restriction which shall remain operative is that no policy decision changing the procedure of the election or with any other vital matter relating to the conduct of the election shall be taken in the 53rd Annual General Meeting scheduled for 3rd September, 2004. In view of the arguments about the jurisdiction and the suit being infructuous, it is also directed that these matters shall be decided by the Trial Court before further proceeding in the suit."
(3.) Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure is as follows : "2-A. Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction. - (1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under Rule 1 or Rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, of the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release. (2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end of which time, if the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto.";