Sri Ampally Narayana Raju Kumarraju @ A. N. K. Raju v. The Cosmopolitan Club

Order Rule 1 and Rule 2 deserves to be sustained? and

¶2Whether the order passed by trial Court on I.A.No.13 requires modification, variation or setting aside?

¶17The facts of the case need not be narrated once again as this Court has already dealt with the facts in each of the appeals stated herein above. Apparently, two suits are filed and orders on the applications of which are

challenged in these appeals. Initially, a suit in O.S.No.4104/2024 came to be filed by the Club against respondent No.1 for the reliefs stated already herein above (supra). In the said suit, an application-I.A.No.1 was filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC restraining the defendant and his agents, henchmen, third person/s or anybody claiming through him or under him in any way from interfering with peaceful possession and occupation of the schedule property and the application-I.A.No.2 was filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking to restrain the defendant and his agents, servants, representatives, employees or any other persons claiming under him in any manner or whatsoever from in any manner interfering representing or associating with the day to day functioning, overall administration and management of the plaintiff/club including but not limited to using the property of the plaintiff/club viz., letter heads, keys and club seals belonging to the plaintiff/club that have been stolen by the defendant and the same are

allowed. When these two applications i.e., I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.4104/2024 came to be allowed by its order dated

07.04.2025, the present elected body i.e., appellants have been running the affairs of the Society and the Club without any interference whatsoever.

¶18It is no doubt true that orders passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.4104/2024 in favour of the appellants are questioned by the respondents, who are the defendants, by filing appeal in MFA No.5070/2025 and MFA No.5128/2025, which came to be filed on 05.07.2025. Today it is 29.06.2026. It is more than a year since the appeals are filed by the respondents-defendants. No action is taken or no effort is made to move this Court for seeking variation or modification of the orders. This being the state of affairs, fresh suit is filed in O.S.No.6688/2024 by the respondents seeking for the reliefs of declaration to declare the 29th AGM of the Cosmopolitan Club conducted on 05.05.2024 to be illegal and void; the election for the period of 2024-2025 conducted on 05.05.2024 to be illegal

and void; declare the membership of respondent No.1-plaintiff No.1, which was suspended to be null and void and further other consequential reliefs. In the said suit, I.A.No.1 came to be filed seeking to stay all decisions taken by defendant Nos.2 to 13 and I.A.No.2 was filed seeking a direction to defendant Nos.2 to 13 not to function as office bearers on account of illegal elections having been held on 05.05.2024. Admittedly, these two applications filed by the plaintiffs came to be dismissed, whereby the trial Court has dealt with Rule 10.1 of the by-laws which deals with the Powers and Duties of the President. Rule 12.2 deals with the quorum of Annual General Body Meeting and Special General Body meeting and has come to the conclusion at paragraph 19 that the defendants have carried out AGM and election as per AGM agenda fixed by plaintiff No.1, who has postponed the AGM and election of defendant No.1-Club. It has also come to the conclusion that the AGM and the elections have been carried out as per Rule 2 (C) of the by-laws.

The trial Court has also come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have not made out prima facie illegality in conducting the AGM and election. It is also held that it is not the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants have carried out AGM and the election afresh without following the by-laws and that defendant No.1-Club is registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, wrongly mentioned as Co-operative Societies Act. The report has been submitted by the election Observer is accepted by the District Registrar and the plaintiffs failed to prove prima facie case and balance of convenience for grant of any interim order. It is also relevant to see that the report dated 13.05.2024 submitted by Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Society to the District Registrar is accepted by the District Registrar. The quorum was also available as required and the members who are present have conducted the AGM and elected the President, Vice President, Secretary and Executive Committee and accordingly, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs did

not make out a prima facie case to say that the defendants have conducted AGM and election illegally. These are some of the findings of the very same Court passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2, which came to be disposed on the very same facts and circumstances and the arguments addressed with regard to the elections being conducted by the defendants on 05.05.2024 being illegal, void, invalid due to not having powers to even conduct such elections. When the plaintiffs did not succeed in the said applications-I.A.Nos.1 and 2 at the first instance, a fresh application was made in I.A.No.13 by the plaintiffs seeking to restrain defendant Nos.2 to 13 from conducting the 31st Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the Club pending disposal of the suit.

¶19Apparently, no different set of facts are pleaded except what is stated earlier in the very same applications-I.A.Nos.1 and 2 and so also the arguments. The trial Court has gone on to allow the application filed by the plaintiffs by holding that the injunction is a recurring

cause of action and that the said order on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 has been challenged and is pending before this Court.

¶20Fundamentally, there are three essential requirements to be considered while granting an order of temporary injunction. They are prima facie case, balance of convenience and the hardship that would be caused to the aggrieved party. The trial Court has lost sight of the fact as to what is prima facie case and what is prima facie title on the merits of the case. While deciding an application for grant of temporary injunction, it is a fundamental rule of law that the trial Court need not conduct a mini-trial, as that would prejudice the entire merits of the case. When similar applications-I.A.Nos.1 and 2 came to be filed for grant of temporary injunction and the same having been rejected by the very same Court opining that the plaintiffs were unable to make out a prima facie case, this Court fails to understand how the trial Court later on comes to a conclusion of a prima facie

case having been made out by the plaintiffs for grant of an injunction restraining the defendants from conducting the AGM after having been successful in the elections conducted on 05.05.2024, which is not set aside by any Court. It may be a different matter that the defendants either succeed or do not succeed in the main suit, but the fact remains that in pursuance to the election conducted on 05.05.2024, they have been running the affairs of the Society and the Club from the period of their election as on date.

¶21All the contentions that are raised by the plaintiffs as to whether the AGM that was conducted in the earlier round, the elections thereafter, by which, the defendants' got elected as elected body of the Club and performing the activities of the Club for the past two years is valid in the eye of law or not are to be decided in the course of trial,. However, prima facie coming to the conclusion that the whole aspect is wrong is as good as coming to a main decision on the merits of the matter,

which is not permissible while deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has committed an error and illegality in not relying upon its own orders passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2 and nothing having been placed before the Court to vary or modify that order which it had earlier decided, which amounts to res judicata. All these aspects will have to be dealt with during the course of trial.

¶22In my opinion, the defendants who have got elected to the elected body as on 05.05.2024 and having continued from the said date till date should not be restrained from conducting further activities of the Club including the AGM and any other affairs of the club by virtue of the interim order, which contradicts its earlier orders passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2.

¶23In view of the discussions made herein above, I pass the following: ORDER

i) MFA No.6622/2025 filed by the appellants - defendants against the order dated

25.07.2025 passed on I.A.No.13 in O.S.No.6688/2024 by XV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is allowed.

ii) The impugned order dated 25.07.2025 passed on I.A.No.13 in O.S.No.6688/2024 by XV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is hereby set aside.

iii) Consequently, MFA No.1036/2025 and MFA No.1039/2025 filed by the appellants-plaintiffs against the order dated 18.12.2024 passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2, respectively, in O.S.No.6688/2024 by XV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru are dismissed.

iv) MFA No.5070/2025 and MFA No.5128/2025 filed by the appellant-defendant against the order dated 07.04.2025 passed on I.A.Nos.1 and 2, respectively, in O.S.No.4104/2024 by the IX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru are also dismissed.

v) It is needless to mention that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

paragraphs 1 to 10 .. GSS paragraphs 11 to end .. VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

NC:(2026:KHC:32235( MFA(No.(6622(of(2025( C/W(MFA(No.(1036(of(2025( MFA(No.(1039(of(2025(, ,,HC-KAR( AND(2(OTHERS( ( ( ((((((IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( THDATED(THIS(THE(29 (DAY(OF(JUNE,(2026( ( BEFORE( ( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(PRADEEP(SINGH(YERUR( ( MISCELLANEOUS(FIRST(APPEAL(NO.(6622(OF(2025((CPC)( C/W( MISCELLANEOUS(FIRST(APPEAL(NO.(1036(OF(2025(( MISCELLANEOUS(FIRST(APPEAL(NO.(1039(OF(2025(( MISCELLANEOUS(FIRST(APPEAL(NO.(5070(OF(2025(( MISCELLANEOUS(FIRST(APPEAL(NO.(5128(OF(2025(( ( IN(MFA(No.(6622/2025:( ( BETWEEN:(( ( 1., THE,COSMOPOLITAN,CLUB,(R), ND RD22 ,CROSS,,3 ,BLOCK,,JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU,-,560,011., REP.,BY,ITS,PRESIDENT., , 2., SRI.S.C.KARIGOWDA,, S/O,MR.CHANNAPPA, AGED,ABOUT,82,YEARS, R/AT,NO.,789,,'A',CROSS, TH4 ,'T',BLOCK,,JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560,041., Digitallytisigned , by 3., SRI.M.R.,SANJAY,,GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA S/O,MR,,M.T.,RAMASWAMY,GOWDA, GUPTA SREENATH AGED,ABOUT,55,YEARS, Location:0HIGH R/AT,NO.,47/A,,36,'A',CROSS, COURT0OF TH KARNATAKA 9 ,BLOCK,,JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560,069, , 4., SRI.,T.V.,EKANATH,, S/O,LATE,T.V.R.,GUPTA,, AGED,ABOUT,81,YEARS, R/AT,NO.,47/A,,36,'A',CROSS,, TH9 ,BLOCK,,JAYANAGAR,, BENGALURU-560,069, , , NC:(2026:KHC:32235( MFA(No.(6622(of(2025( C/W(MFA(No.(1036(of(2025( MFA(No.(1039(of(2025(, ,,HC-KAR( AND(2(OTHERS( ( ( 5., SRI,PRASAD,TALLAM,, AGED,ABOUT,72,YEARS, THR/AT,NO.,490,,7 ,BLOCK, TH7 ,CROSS,,JAYANAGAR,WEST, BENGALURU-560,082., , 6., SRI.KIRAN,HOLLA,, MAJOR, THR/AT,NO.,138,,7 ,CROSS, SUBRAMANYAPRA,MAIN,ROAD, MARUTHI,HOUSING,CO-OP-SOCIETY, VASANTHPURA, BENGALURU-560,061, , 7., SRI.,UTTAM,CHANDRASHEKAR,, S/O,MR.N,CHANDRASHEKAR, MAJOR,, THR/AT,NO.,1037,,14 ,CROSS, TH ND30 ,MAIN,,BSK,2 ,STAGE, BENGALURU-560,070, , 8., MS.,B.A.,SOWMYA,, D/O,B.S.,ANNEGOWDA, MAJOR, R/AT,NO.,373,,T-301,,MEENAKSHI,RESIDENCY, TH TH16 ,MAIN,,4 ,'T',BLOCK,,JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560,041., , 9., SRI.,VENKATESH.,B,, S/O,MR.,K.,BORAIAH,, MAJOR,, THR/AT,NO.,70/41,,11 ,MAIN, TH14 ,CROSS,, NDBSK,2 ,STAGE,,PADMANABHANAGAR,, BENGALURU-560,070, , 10., DR.,B.R.,SANDEEP,, S/O,LATE,DR.,B.L.,RAMAMURTHY, MAJOR, ND THR/AT,NO.,112,,2 ,MAIN,,7 ,BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560,082, , NC:(2026:KHC:32235( MFA(No.(6622(of(2025( C/W(MFA(No.(1036(of(2025( MFA(No.(1039(of(2025(, ,,HC-KAR( AND(2(OTHERS( ( ( 11., SRI.,SUMAL,VASUDEV,, S/O,MR.,B.R.,VASUDEV, MAJOR, THR/AT,NO.,17,,38 ,CROSS, TH TH5 ,MAIN,,5 ,BLOCK,,JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560,041., , 12., SHRI.,K.S.,KEDARNATH,, S/O,SRIRAMALU, MAJOR, THR/AT,292/A,,34 ,CROSS, TH TH9 ,MAIN,ROAD,,4 ,BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560,001, …APPELLANTS, (BY, SRI.S.RAJASHEKAR, AND, SRI., PRASANNA, KUMAR, P.,ADVOCATES), ( [( AND:( ( ( [( 1., SRI.A.N.K,RAJU, S/O,A,N,NARAYAN,RAJU, AGED,ABOUT,67,YEARS, THR/AT,NO.164/A,,20 ,MAIN, NDJP,NAGAR,2 ,PHASE, BENGALURU-560,078, , 2., SRI.,RAVI,SHANKAR,, S/O,LATE,D,SHIVARUDRAPPA, AGED,ABOUT,66,YEARS, R/AT,NO.57,,H.B.,SAMAJA,ROAD,, BASAVANGUDI, BENGALURU-560,004., , , 3., SRI.,A.P.VENKAT,NAIK,, S/O,MR.,R.P.,NAIK, MAJOR, THR/,AT,NO.,40,,14 ,A,MAIN, TH15 ,A,CROSS,,OPPOSITE,TO,BDA,COMPLEX, TH4 ,SECTOR,,IISR,LAYOUT, BENGALURU-,560,102, …RESPONDENTS, NC:(2026:KHC:32235( MFA(No.(6622(of(2025( C/W(MFA(No.(1036(of(2025( MFA(No.(1039(of(2025(, ,,HC-KAR( AND(2(OTHERS( ( ( (BY, SRI., D.R.RAVISHANKAR.,, SENIOR, COUNSEL, FOR, SRI.NEERAJ,RAJIV,SHIVAM.,ADVOCATE,FOR,R-1,&,R-2;, ,,,,,,,NOTICE,TO,R-3,IS,DISPENSED,WITH,V.O.D,13.01.2026), , , , THIS, MFA, IS, FILED, U/S.43, RULE, 1(r), OF, THE, CPC,, AGAINST,THE,ORDER,DT.,25.07.2025,PASSED,ON,IA,NO.XIII, IN,O.S.NO.6688/2024,,ON,THE,FILE,OF,THE,XV,ADDITIONAL, CITY, CIVIL, AND, SESSIONS, JUDGE,, BENGALURU, CCH-3, ALLOWING,THE,IA.NO.XIII,,FILED,U/O.39,RULE,1,AND,2,R/W, SEC.151,OF,CPC,,1908.,, , , IN(MFA(NO.(1036/2025( ( BETWEEN:( ( 1., SRI,A,N,K,RAJU, S/O,SRI.,A,N,NARAYAN,RAJU, AGED,ABOUT,67,YEARS, TH164/A,,20 ,MAIN,ROAD, NDJP,NAGAR,2 ,PHASE,, BENGALURU,-,560,078., , 2., SRI,RAVI,SHANKAR, S/O,LATE,D,SHIVARUDRAPPA, AGED,ABOUT,66,YEARS, R/AT,NO.57,,H.B.,SAMAJA,ROAD, BASAVANGUDI, BENGALURU,-,560,004., ...APPELLANTS,