D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) Challenging the election of the Committee of Management held in 1997, the opposite party No. 6 had filed Original Suit No. 62 of 1998. In connection therewith, an application for injunction was filed. The said application for injunction was rejected by an order dated 23.12.1998, Against the said order, the opposite party had preferred an appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 5 of 1999. The said appeal was allowed by order dated 29.5.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court. Mau. It is this order which has since been challenged in this writ petition.
(2.) Dr. R. G, Padia. learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the grant of injunction had virtually decreed the suit itself. Therefore, such an Interim injunction cannot be granted. He further contended that the application for Injunction was not supported by any affidavit, whereas Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure require such an application to be supported by affidavit. He had also raised various other points about the merit of the case which is not necessary to be gone into at this stage.
(3.) Shri A. P. Sahi. learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand contends that the question can very well be gone into inasmuch as it is a question as to the person managing affairs of the institution after having been validly elected. He had also contended that the election that was alleged to have been held by the petitioner was not on the basis of general members of the society though according to the scheme of administration all members of the society shall participate in the election. These are all question of disputed facts which cannot be gone into at this stage, which can very well be decided in the suit itself on the materials that might be produced by the respective parties.;