C.K.PRASAD,C.J. - (1.) SAURABH Chaturvedi, appellant herein, aggrieved by order dated 10.04.2009 passed by a learned Judge in C.M. Application No. 35429 of 2009 filed in Writ Petition No. 2817 (MS) of 2008, whereby a direction has been issued that till the next date of listing, no extraordinary general meeting shall be convened to consider the matter regarding expulsion of the writ petitioner and other members of the Lucknow Golf Club, has preferred this appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Adesh Seth, respondent no.1 herein, filed the writ petition, inter alia, praying for the following reliefs:- "i. That by means of an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari, to be issued by this Hon'ble Court, whereby part of the impugned order dated 02.06.2008 passed by the Opp. Party No. 1 insofar it relates to the rejection of objections in respect of the members eligible to participate as well as the publication and due prominence of the election schedule, as contained in Annexure No.1 may kindly be quashed. ii. That by means of an appropriate writ or direction including in the nature of mandamus be issued by this Hon'ble Court appointing some officers other than the opp. party No.1 who be directed to hold elections as scheduled by allowing only those members who were eligible to participate and cast their votes on 31st March 2005 as already unanimously agreed vide resolution passed by the then undisputed Managing Committee of year 2003; and an administrator be appointed to take charge of the affairs of the club till the holding of the elections." It seems that during the pendency of the writ petition, Devesh Rastogi, respondent no.5 herein, issued letter dated 04.04.2009 to consider the expulsion of the writ petitioner and one Prashant Chandra from the membership of the Lucknow Golf Club (hereinafter referred to as the 'Club'). Said Adesh Seth filed an interlocutory application (C.M. No. 35429 of 2009), inter alia, praying for staying the operation of the letter dated 04.04.2009 and restraining the Club from convening the extraordinary general meeting to consider the expulsion of the writ petitioner and Prashant Chandra from the membership of the Club. The aforesaid interim relief was resisted on various grounds. However, the learned Judge by the impugned order, granted the interim relief and while doing so, he observed as follows:- "Keeping in view the fact that the hearing of the instant writ petition as well as the other connected writ petitions is under way and 15.04.2009 is the next date fixed for hearing of all the matters and also the fact that status quo order is operative in Writ Petition No. 2941 (M/S) of 2008 and no date has been fixed for convening extraordinary general meeting for considering the matter regarding expulsion of the petitioner and others from the membership of the club, without going into the merits of the respective contentions of the parties, at this stage, it is provided in the interest of justice that till the next date of listing no extraordinary general meeting shall be convened by the opposite party No. 3 for considering the matter regarding expulsion of the petitioner and other members from the membership of the Lucknow Golf Club."
(3.) MR . Sudeep Seth, appearing on behalf of respondents nos. 1 and 2, raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal. He submits that the order impugned is an interlocutory order, which cannot be construed to be a judgment and, hence, the special appeal in terms of Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules does not lie. He points out that the interlocutory order did not have the effect of finally disposing off the writ petition. In support of the submission, reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Society Madarsa Mazahir Uloom Mubarak Shah Vs. Muzaffar Hussain, (1994) 1 UPLBEC 277, and our attention has been drawn to paragraph 11 of the judgment, which reads as follows:- "11. For an order to be treated as ''judgment', in both the stages, it is necessary that it should have the effect of finally disposing of a writ petition and affecting the valuable rights of the parties which might ultimately is given when the writ petition is finally disposed of by the Court." ;