Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. - (1.) I am considering three applications filed in connection with C.S. No. 400 of 2001 together as similar questions are involved in all those applications.
(2.) These three applications are : (1) An application for withdrawal of the suit filed by the plaintiffs on July 28, 2003. The said application has been registered as G.A. No. 2653 of 2003. (2) The application filed by the defendant No. 9, namely, Dhirendra Nath Das, on August 14, 2003 for deletion of the name of the plaintiff No. 2 and for substitution of the defendant No. 9 instead and in place of the said plaintiff No. 2 in the suit upon his transposition from the category of the defendants to the category of the plaintiffs. The said application has been registered as G.A. No. 2896 of 2003. (3) The other application filed by the said defendant No. 9 is, in substance, for a direction on the erstwhile members of the committee of the West Bengal Rifle Association to handover the charge of management and administration to the newly elected committee of the said association and to restrain the plaintiff No. 2 and any other member of the erstwhile committee from in any way or manner holding themselves out and/or representing themselves as the office bearers of the said Association. There is, also, a prayer, inter alia, for a direction on the defendant No. 25, that is, the National Rifle Association of India, to recognize the present committee of the West Bengal Rifle Association elected in the election conducted by the learned Special Officer appointed by this Court and to render all assistance and co-operation to the newly elected committee so that the newly elected committee may function smoothly and the shooters nominated by the West Bengal Rifle Association are permitted to participate in national championships. The said application has been registered as G.A. No. 2922 of 2003.
(3.) Some facts are required to be stated in order to appreciate the points involved in these three applications: (a) The West Bengal Rifle Association and one Subesh Choudhury, claiming himself to be the Secretary General of the plaintiff No. 1, instituted the present suit being C.S. No. 400 of 2001 for the following reliefs : "(a) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 25 except Nos. 11, 17 and 23 from holding themselves out and/or acting as members of the Executive Committee/Ad hoc Executive Committee of the plaintiff No. 1; (b) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 25 except Nos. 11, 17 and 24 their agents, servants and/or assigns from interfering with the functioning of the plaintiff No. 1 and/ or holding themselves out as representatives of the plaintiff No. 1; (c) If necessary, a meeting be conducted of all the members of the plaintiff No. 1 for the purpose of ascertaining who are the duly authorized members of the Executive Committee of the plaintiff No. 1; (d) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 25 except Nos. 11, 17 and 23 from holding themselves out as members of the plaintiff No. 1; (e) The notice purportedly issued by the defendant Nos. 1 to 25 except Nos. 11, 17 and 23 on behalf of the plaintiff No. 1 be adjudged void, delivered up and cancelled; (f) The defendant Nos. 1 to 25 except No. 23 should be restrained from using the stationery in the name of the plaintiff No. 1; (g) Declaration that the defendant Nos. 1 to 25 except Nos. 11, 17 and 23 are not the members of the Executive Committee of the plaintiff No. 1; (h) Declaration that the members of the Executive Committee of the plaintiff No. 1 are those whose names have been given in paragraph 6 above;" (b) The plaint of the said suit was presented on August 10, 2001 and Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. on the said August 10, 2001, inter alia, admitted the plaint and granted leave both under clause 12 of the Letters Patent and under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (c) On December 14, 2001 Pinaki Chandra Ghosh, J., at the suggestion of the parties appearing before His Lordship, appointed Mr. Deb Mukherjee, advocate as the learned Special Officer to hold the election of the West Bengal Rifle Association on the basis of the member's list as on December 31, 1998. (d) The learned Special Officer conducted the election, in terms of the said order dated December 14, 2001, on March 1, 2002 and, subsequently, he submitted his report. (e) The report of the learned Special Officer was challenged by the plaintiffs by filing an application being G.A. No. 1680 of 2002. In the said application an injunction was, also, prayed for to restrain the learned Special Officer from declaring and/or publishing the result of the election held on March 1, 2002. (f) Pinaki Chandra Ghosh, J. by order dated April 8, 2003 rejected the said application, inter alia, with the observations that no ground had been made out for setting aside of the report of the learned Special Officer and, consequently, His Lordship directed the learned Special Officer to declare the results. (g) In compliance of the said order dated April 8, 2003, the learned Special Officer convened a meeting on May 16, 2003 for the purpose of declaration and/ or publication of the result of the election held on March 1, 2002. The learned Special Officer in the said meeting declared the result of the election of the members of the committee of the West Bengal Rifle Association. The newly elected members took over the charge of the Association. (h) On July 28, 2003 the plaintiffs filed an application for withdrawal of the suit supported by an affidavit affirmed by the said Subesh Choudhury, the plaintiff No. 2. The said application has been registered as G.A. No. 2653 of 2003. (i) In the meantime, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal against the said order dated April 8, 2003 before the Division Bench. The Division Bench on July 25, 2003 dismissed the appeal, inter alia, with the observations that the appellants and their associates would be well advised to handover all the keys and the papers to the respondents and stop writing any unwarranted letters unless they wished to take the risk of facing proceedings for going against the purport of the orders of the Court. (j) On August 14, 2003 the defendant No. 9 in this suit filed the said application for his transposition as the plaintiff instead and in place of the said plaintiff No. 2. (k) On August 18, 2003 the said defendant No. 9 filed yet another application being G.A. No. 2922 of 2003.;