IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL M.F.A.No.5357/2016 (CPC) BETWEEN IMTIYAZ PASHA S/O MOHAMMED GHOSE, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.265/BADDA MAKHAN, H SIDDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027. ... APPELLANT (By Sri ANIL KUMAR R., ADV. FOR KESVY & CO., ADVS.) AND AL-AMEEN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY HAVING OFFICE AT AL AMEN CAMPUS, HOSUR ROAD,NEAR LAL-BAGH MAIN GATE, BANGALORE-560 027, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENT (By Sri V.BALAKRISHNA & SYEDA SHEHNAJ, ADVS.) THIS MFA FILED U/O 43, RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED:4.7.2016 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN O.S.NO.3754/2016 ON THE FILE OF 11TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING IA NO.2 FILED U/O 39, RULE 1 & 2 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT 1. Order dated 04.07.2016 passed by the XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, rejecting the application I.A.No.2 filed by the appellant under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC is challenged in this appeal.
2. Appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.3754/2016. The said suit is filed seeking relief of declaration that letter of suspension dated 06.04.2016 issued by the Executive Committee of the defendant – Society suspending the plaintiff from life membership of the society as null and void. A decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant – society from interfering with the plaintiff in exercising his right as member of the defendant – Society has been also sought.
3. Along with the plaint, an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC was filed by the plaintiff – appellant herein seeking an order of temporary injunction to restrain the defendant – Society from enforcing the order of suspension dated 06.04.2016. The Court below has passed the impugned order rejecting the said application. The said order reads as under:
“ORDER ON I.A.No.2.
This is an application filed by plaintiff seeking to restrain defendant or anybody claiming under him from executing the letter of suspension dated 06/04/2016 by staying the same.
By filing this application, plaintiff is seeking interference of the Court with departmental enquiry which is not permissible under law.
Prima facie the application is not maintainable and when such being the case, question of granting an order of temporary injunction against defendants does not arise.
Accordingly, IA.No.2 filed by the plaintiff is dismissed.”
4. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellant, order passed by the Court below is not a reasoned order. The contentions urged by the respective parties have not been considered. Only reason for rejecting the application is that ‘by filing the application, plaintiff was seeking interference of the Court with the departmental enquiry which was not permissible under law’.
5. Application filed by the plaintiff was in the nature of an interim order restraining the Executive Committee of the defendant – Society from enforcing the order of suspension thereby preventing and stopping the plaintiff from continuing as member of the defendant – Society. He had not sought for any interim relief restraining the competent authority of the Society from proceeding with the departmental enquiry. Therefore, the Court below was not right and justified in passing such an order without taking note of relevant considerations.
6. Hence, without going into the merits of the claim made by the plaintiff, this appeal deserves to be allowed on the short ground that order under challenge is bereft of any reason. The Court below has to re-hear both parties and pass an order afresh on I.A.No.2.
Hence, this appeal is allowed in part. Impugned order is set aside. Matter is remitted to the Court below for reconsideration of I.A.No.2 and for passing an order afresh as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
PKS Sd/- JUDGE