- (1.) The petitioners have challenged the order dated 23-8-2001 passed in appeal by the Additional District Judge, Gulabpura in Civil Misc. Case No. 16/2001 by which the appeal of the non-petitioners was accepted and the order of injunction dated 13-8-2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gulabpura was set aside by the appellate Court in a matter of injunction sought by the plaintiff-petitioners against the defendant-non-petitioners.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order of the appellate Court vacating the stay order is absolutely illegal and the learned appellate Court has not cared to deal with the grounds taken by the Court of first instance before setting aside the order of the trial Court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Judge of the appellate Court failed to peruse the point in controversy, the law involved in the matter and also under wrong impression of law, exercised its jurisdiction and set aside the order of the trial Court, holding it that the order of the State Government or order of the department of education can be challenged only in the High Court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the appellate Court even mis-understood the meaning of the ultra vires. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners even the appellate Court very specifically and categorically observed that one of the plaintiffs Sumer Chand Chhajed shown his awareness and filed the suit for injunction on the basis of infringement of his rights even then the appellate Court wrongly set aside the injunction order. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, while considering the prima facie case of the plaintiff, the appellate Court again committed illegality resulting into irregularities in exercise of jurisdiction. In addition to above, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even the orders passed by the State Government were not correctly interpreted by the first appellate Court. Therefore, this is a clear case of wrong exercise of jurisdiction by the appellate Court resulting into the irreparable loss to the petitioners.
(3.) The learned counsel for the non-petitioner vehemently submitted that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 115, C.P.C., should not interfere in the order passed by the first appellate Court because of the fact that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff-petitioners and even if there is any prima facie case in favour of the petitioner-plaintiffs, then it will not result into occasion of failure of justice or irreparable loss to the plaintiff-petitioner's because of the fact that this is matter of election in which the law laid down by not only this Court but also by the Hon'ble Apex Court, clearly provides that no interim order with respect to the holding of election should be passed and, here in this case, the substantial part of the election has already been completedandnow the election of office bearers is to be held on 15-9-2001. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner tried to support the order on merit by submitting that the order of the State Government in pursuance of which the Administrator had taken over the charge of the management of the society itself has not been challenged by the plaintiff despite their knowledge and despite the fact that the order was acted upon by the administrator and the management of the society, in fact, was taken over, when the administrator has taken over the charge of the society and conducting the election then without challenging the order for taking over charge of the society or without challenging the authority to hold the office of the administrator over the society, the plaintiff has no right to challenge the only consequential action of holding election by the administrator. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner also submitted that the administrator was appointed by the State Government by order dated 19-5-2001. The charge was taken over by the administrator on 11-6-2001. The notification for holding election was issued on 16-7-2001, whereas the present suit was filed in the month of August, 2001, therefore, on account of this inordinate delay, the petitioner-plaintiff is not entitled for any equitable relief and also vehemently submitted that in case election will not be held within the time schedule then it will result into the situation which will be against the interest of all the staff of the educational institution and the students as well as the school. Therefore, looking to the larger interest, the plaintiff is not entitled for any equitable relief of injunction.;