Interim Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 2 CS SCJ 633-25
PARAMJEET SINGH ORS. Vs. ALL INDIA FINE ARTS
AND CRAFTS SOCIETY ORS.
14.08.2026
Present: Dr. Virendra Kumar, Learned Counsel for Plaintiffs
with Plaintiffs.
Mr. V Siddharth and Ms. Mahima Arora, Learned
Counsel for the Defendants No. 1 and 23.
Ms. Ratna Aggarwal, Learned Counsel for the
Defendant No. 13 through VC.
Defence of Defendants No. 1, 3 to 12, 15 to 22, and
24 to 42 struck off by order dated 20.07.2026.
1. D-23 has filed a WS dated 10.08.2026 along with a
separate application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC for taking
the same on record and by yet another index of even date,
D-23 has also filed the reply to the application by Plaintiff
under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Copy Supplied.
2. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs states that he has no
objection if the application is allowed and WS of D-23 is
taken on record.
3. Accordingly, the application 10.08.2026 by D-23 under
Order 9 Rule 7 CPC is allowed for the reasons
mentioned therein and its WS is taken on record.
4. Arguments are heard on the application by Plaintiff under
Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction
to the following effect:
“i) Pass an ex-parte order of temporary
injunction restraining the Defendants, their
1/5
-- 1 of 5 --
agents, employees, and representatives in any
manner from renewing/negotiating or executing
a fresh lease deed with respect to the premises
of the Defendant No. 1 Society, and from
parting with possession of any part of the
premises.
ii) Pass an order restraining the Defendants,
their agents, employees, and representatives
from selling, alienating, transferring, leasing,
mortgaging, or creating any third-party interest
in any property, movable or immovable,
belonging to the Defendant No. 1 Society until
the final disposal of the suit.
iii) Pass an order restraining Defendants from
operating the bank accounts of the Society
without prior permission of this Hon’ble
Court.”
5. This suit has been filed by three Plaintiffs who are
members of the D-1 Society and have been unsuccessful in
the elections held on 16.02.2025 and 26.02.2025 for
becoming its officer bearers.
6. There are 42 Defendants in the suit who are all stated to be
the successful candidates.
7. The plaint is verbose and shorn of unnecessary details, the
Plaintiffs have only the following two grievances against
the elections:
1. as per Article VI of the Memorandum and Articles of
Association of the D-1 Society, the AGM and election
of the Society are to be held every year between April
and October and that the elections under challenge were
held outside this period; and
2/5
-- 2 of 5 --
2. pursuant to a meeting of the Executive Committee held
on 12.05.2023, it was decided that no two members of a
family be taken in the Council, which was approved by
the Council of D-1 Society on 21.07.2023 and that
some of the elected members are related.
8. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff as also the Plaintiffs
present in court confirm that these are the only two
grievances on the basis of which this suit has been filed.
9. Learned Counsel for the Defendant No. 1 and 23 has
opposed the same on the grounds that the interim
injunction sought has no nexus with the main prayers or
the averments in the plaint and this is only an attempt by
the unsuccessful candidates to disrupt the working of the
D-1 Society.
10.He has taken the court through the record to show how the
Plaintiffs have concealed and suppressed material facts
from the court and do not deserve any indulgence at all as
they have approached the court with unclean hands. The
ground for saying this is that P-1 himself was the
Chairman for several years and did not conduct any AGM
or elections and all the three Plaintiffs not only participated
in the meetings to conduct the elections now challenged
but actively organized them and are now barred from
challenging them.
11.For the purpose of deciding the application under
3/5
-- 3 of 5 --
consideration, suffice it to say that the purpose of an
interim injunction/direction is to preserve the status quo
lest the suit become infructuous.
12.The intention to grant immediate temporary directions
without even any evidence being led or case being
established is that if such relief is not granted, the outcome
of the suit might be adversely affected.
13.The prayers in the temporary injunction appear to have no
nexus on the outcome of the suit which seeks the
declaration that the AGM and election held on 16.02.2025
and 26.02.2025 be declared null and void.
14.There is not a single averment in the plaint to support any
prayer for restraining the Defendants from
entering/terminating any lease or dealing with any assets
of the Society whether immovable or movable including
bank accounts.
15.In the absence of any such averment, not only the
application for temporary injunction is without any nexus
with the main prayer, it is completely misconceived and
outside the scope of the suit.
16.No grounds have been demonstrated to allow the same let
alone meeting the triple test for grant of temporary
injunctions.
4/5
-- 4 of 5 --
17.This is sufficient to decide the application under
consideration in the negative and this Court today is
refraining from giving any findings on the suppression,
concealment, unclean hands and acquiescence of the
Plaintiffs as alleged by D-1 and D-23, which hit at the
maintainability of the suit itself. The Plaintiffs are given an
opportunity to address the same.
18.Accordingly, being without merit, the application dated
27.03.2026 by Plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
CPC is dismissed.
19.The Plaintiffs are directed to file a replication to the WS of
D-23 and to clearly admit or deny the facts averred therein.
20.Parties are directed to file their respective affidavits of
admission/denial and proposed issues, if any.
21.List for framing of issues, if any arise/arguments on
maintainability on 02.09.2026.
(VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGH)
Civil Judge, Patiala House Courts
New Delhi District, Delhi
14.08.2026
5/5
-- 5 of 5 --