Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Civ Suit524/23
KAILASH SINGH BISHT Vs. JAI AMBEY APARTMENTS RWA
15.07.2023 (04.00 PM)
ORDER
The plaintiff, by way of the present application seeks that
the defendants be restrained from conducting unfair and
unjustified elections of the Jai Ambey Apartments on
16.07.2023, till disposal of the suit. It is the averment of the
plaintiff that previously, in the year 2022, elections were
conducted on 17.04.2022 and the plaintiff and defendant no. 2
had participated in the elections. The plaintiff was then declared
the Vice President of the Society. It is further averred that the
defendants no. 1 & 2, however, did not allow the plaintiff to take
full charge. It is his further submission that a separate suit for
permanent and mandatory injunction bearing no. 232/2021 filed
by defendant no. 1 against defendant no. 2 is pending before
another Court which is pending for Mediation, however the
defendant no. 1 to 4 have, in the meanwhile, initiated the
election process for the year 202324 in the month of July, 2023
and the elections are to be conducted on 16.07.2023. The
plaintiff came to know about the same on 07.07.2023 when the
posters for the same were circulated in the entire premises of
the Society. The core issue which has however occasioned the
filing of present suit is that the President of defendants no. 1 &
2 are allegedly not eligible for contesting the elections, being
nonresidents of the Society. It is further alleged that two RWAs
can not conduct the elections at the same time. Accordingly, the
defendants should be restrained from conducting the elections.
-- 1 of 4 --
2
Detailed arguments have been advanced by the Ld.
Counsel for the plaintiff as well as the defendants. Ld. Counsel
for the plaintiff, in support of his application submitted that the
president of defendants no. 1 & 2 are not the residents of the
Society. Ld. Counsel for the defendants have refuted the
submission made by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, submitting
that the Presidents of defendant no. 1 & 2 are the residents of
the Society and are infact owners of individual properties in the
Societies. Ld. Counsel for defendant further submits that the
elections are being conducted as per the prescribed procedure
and norms. He submits that defendants no. 1 & 2 have clubbed
together and the elections are being conducted as per the
resolution passed by the Society. It is his submission that the
Society is making arrangements for the elections since May,
2023. He submits that a general body meeting for the elections
was conducted and a public notice was also issued for the
same. He submits that in case the defendants are not allowed
to conduct the election, it would lead to irreparable loss to the
defendants as the elections are fixed for tomorrow i.e.
16.07.2023.
Heard, perused and considered.
Having considered the application of the plaintiff and the
submissions made on behalf of plaintiff as well as the
defendant, this Court is of the opinion that the present
application of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected as the plaintiff
has not made out a strong prima facie case in his favour. Ld.
Counsel for the defendants, during his arguments submitted
that the tenure for the year 20222023 has completed and thus,
-- 2 of 4 --
3
there is need for fresh election. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff
conceded to the fact that the tenure for the year 20222023 has
completed. Further, the plaintiff in his plaint, admits that even in
the year 2022 the elections were conducted by the plaintiff and
the defendants no. 1 & 2. The averments of the plaintiff that the
defendants did not handover the charge to him in the year 2022
is of no help to the plaintif, as the plaintiff by way of present
application is seeking the relief of injunction against the
elections to be conducted on 16.07.2023. Secondly, the
balance of convenience also falls in favour of the defendants as
the election process has already been initiated. The plaintiff,
himself, has averred in the plaint that the election process has
been initiated by the defendants and the posters and banners
for the same were also circulated by the defendants. In such a
scenerio stalling the election process would result in irreparable
loss and inconvenience to the defendants. Holding the elections
would not result in any such loss to the plaintiff which can not
be compensated. Furthermore, it has been held in a catena of
judgments that if the election process has already been
initiated, the Court should not ordinarily interfere with the said
process by way of granting injunction. Furthermore, the plaintiff
in the present suit has sought the relief on the grounds that the
president of defendants no. 1 & 2 are ineligible for contesting
the elections. The plaintiff instead of availing an alternate
remedy to get the nomination of the members (Presidents of
defendants no. 1 & 2) cancelled has filed the present suit. His
further submission that two separate RWAs can not conduct
-- 3 of 4 --
4
the elections is also untenable as the Ld. Counsel for the
defendants has stated that the RWAs have clubbed together for
joint elections. Averments made in the plaint itself corroborate
the said fact, as the plaintiff has himself averred in para no. 13
of the plaint, that the defendants no. 1 to 4 have jointly initiated
the election process for the year 20232024.
Thus, considering the entire gamut of circumstances, the
Court deems it fit to dismiss the application under Order XXXIX
Rule 1 & 2 CPC. It is further clarified that nothing in this order
shall tantamount to the expression of opinion of this Court on
the merits of the case. Copy of this order be given dasti.
(Prigya Gupta)
ASCJcumJSCCcumGuardian Judge,
East, KKD Courts, Delhi/ 15.07.2023
-- 4 of 4 --