Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) The present petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India has been directed against the order dt. 11.01.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur(hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Court) in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 71/2011, whereby the Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioners and respondent No. 5 and 6 (original appellants - defendants), and confirmed the order dt. 22.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Court No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court)in temporary injunction application no. 30/2009 filed in Suit No. 47/09.
(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the present respondent No. 3 and 4 (original-plaintiffs) have filed the suit being No. 47/ 09, before the trial Court seeking declaration that the so called election of office bearers of Shri Gujarati Samaj, held on 30.08.2009, be declared null and void, and also for permanent injunction. The plaintiffs had also filed an application being No. 30/09, seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants from performing any act in the capacity of members of the executive committee or school committee or as the office bearers of the Samaj during the pendency of the suit. The said application was resisted by the respondent No. 5 and 6 (original-defendant No. 3 and 4), by filing detailed reply. The trial Court after hearing the arguments of learned counsels for the parties and documents on record, dismissed the said T.I. Application vide its order dt. 24.02.2010.The plaintiffs being aggrieved by the said order, had preferred a civil miscellaneous appeal before the Appellate Court, whereby the Appellate Court allowed the same and remitted the case to the trial Court for deciding the T.I. Application afresh, in view of the observations made in its order dt. 22.02.2011. The learned trial Court after the remand of the case, again heard the T.I. Application and allowed the same vide the order dt. 22.11.2011. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners as well as the respondent No. 5 and 6 (original-defendants), preferred the appeal being Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 71/2011, before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court dismissed the said appeal upholding the order passed by the trial Court, vide order dt. 11.01.2012. Being aggrieved by the said orders passed by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, the petitioners have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court by filing the petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) It has been submitted by learned counsel Mr. Daga for the petitioners that the Courts below have granted the relief to the plaintiffs at the interim stage virtually allowing the suit of the plaintiffs without any trial. Relying upon the constitution of Shri Gujarati Samaj, Jaipur, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no illegality committed in the election held on 30.08.2009, however, both the Courts below have misinterpreted the provisions of the Constitution of Shri Gujarati Samaj and also the proceedings of the General Body meeting held on 30.08.2009. Mr. Daga has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Manohar Lal(D) by Lrs. v. Ugarsen (D) by Lrs. And Ors., 2010(4) Supreme 519, to buttress his submission that the Court could not grant the relief which was not specifically prayed for by the parties. Relying upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Cotton Corporation of India Limited., v. United Industrial Bank Limited and Others, AIR 1983 SC 1272, in the case of Bank of Maharashtra, v. Race Shipping and Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Another, AIR 1995 SC 1368, and in case of M/s. Anand Associates v. Nagpur Improvement Trust & Ors. 2000(6) Supreme 218, the learned counsel has submitted that the practice of granting interim orders which practically gives the principal relief has been strongly deprecated by the Supreme Court. Placing reliance on the decision of Orissa High Court in the case of Kailash Chandra Dandapat and Others etc. v. Secretary, Birabhadraswar Weavers' co-operative Society Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1994 Orissa 1, and the decision of Madras High Court in the case of S. Krishnaswamy and others v. South India Film Chamber of Commerce and Others, AIR 1969 MADRAS 42, the learned counsel has argued that right to election, is not a civil right and therefore, the suit itself was not maintainable. The learned counsel has also relied upon the decisions of Apex Court in case of M/S. Sriram Industrial Enterpirses Ltd. v. Manak Singh & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1370, in the case of Kishore Kumar Khaitan Anr. v. Praveen Kumar Singh 2006 (2) Supreme 75 , and in case of S.N. Kapoor (D) by his Lrs. v. Basant Lal Khatri and Ors. 2001(8) Supreme 65, to submit that the jurisdictional error could be corrected by the High Court exercising powers under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.;