- (1.) THIS First Miscellaneous Appeal is at the instance of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 in a suit for declaration and injunction and is directed against Order No. 16 dated 21st August, 2006 passed by the learned Trial Judge thereby disposing of an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiffs/respondents thereby restraining the present appellants from giving any effect to the results of the interviews of the candidates for membership with the intention to induct them as associate members under restricted category and also restraining them from convening any further meeting or interview to induct any associate members as restricted members of the defendant no. 1 till the disposal of the suit. The appellants were further restrained from inducting the proposed associate members with restricted rights from becoming the members of the defendant no. 1 till the disposal of the suit. Being dissatisfied, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 have come up with the present appeal.
(2.) THE plaintiffs/respondents, five members of the defendant no. 1, the club, filed before the City Civil Court at Calcutta, a suit being Title Suit No. 671 of 2006 thereby praying for the following relief: "a. Leave be granted under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; b. Declaration that the meetings held on 5th July, 2006 to induct Associate members as Restricted Members not being in conformity with the Rules and Bye-laws of defendant No. 1 is illegal, null and void and cannot be given effect to; c. Declaration that induction of the proposed Associate members under the guise of Restricted Category and/or imposing any terms not in conformity with Rule 3 and 15 (a) of the Rules and Bye-laws of defendant No. 1 are illegal and void ab-initio and be declared null and void; d. Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from giving any effect to the interview of the proposed members with the intention to induct them as Associate members under Restricted category with restriction on their children of becoming members of the Defendant No. 1 on attaining the age of 21 years; e. Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants convening any further meeting and/or interviews to induct proposed Associate members as restricted members of the defendant No. 1; f. Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants from inducting the proposed Associate members as restricted members from becoming members of the defendant No. 1; g. Injunction; h. Receiver; i. Costs; j. Such other and further reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to. "
(3.) THE case made out by the plaintiffs in the said suit may be summed up thus: (a) The plaintiffs were the members of the defendant no. 1, a reputed and prestigious club of the city of Calcutta since 1887. The defendant nos. 2 and 3 are the responsible office bearers of the defendant no. 1 and the defendant nos. 4 to 14 the committee members of the defendant no. 1. (b) The object of the defendant no. 1 is to provide and maintain swimming pool for the members of the club, encourage and promote swimming, water polo, life saving and all other branches of aquatic sports in every possible manner. The defendant no. 1 has also a restaurant, three bars, rooms and banquet-hall apart from a billiard-room and children-room. The defendant no. 1 also promotes various cultural and social activities in the premises of the club. (c) According to Rule 3 of the Rules and Bye-laws of the defendant no. 1, there are several classes of members and Rule 3 (c) provides that any associate member who has been a member for a continuous period of two years can become a permanent member upon payment of the difference of entrance fee for associate member and entrance fee for permanent member. (d) In February, 2002, the defendant no. 1 through its committee decided to admit new associate members. The persons willing to become associate members were required to deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- which include entrance fee and development fund. The children of the persons willing to become associate members were to be governed under Rule 15 (a) of the Bye-laws of the said defendant no. 1 when they would become eligible for membership. (e) Several applicants applied for becoming the associate members of the defendant no. 1 and the committee members of the defendant no. 1 after following the procedures under the Rules and Bye-laws of the defendant no. 1 selected approximately 380 numbers of associate members between the years 2003-04. However, at the time of admission of the new members, they were not taken as normal associate members but as associate members with a restriction clause. (f) The committee, at the time of admission of those members, got an undertaking from them that their children would not be governed under Rule 15 (a) of the Bye-laws of the defendant no. 1 and that their children after attaining the age of 21 years would not automatically become the members of the defendant no. 1. (g) Such act of the committee members of the defendant no. 1 was itself in violation of Rule 3 of the Rules and Bye-laws of the club as such restriction imposed upon the associate members was not found in the Byelaws of the club. Hence the suit. ;