V. B. Bansal ( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of the application underorder 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code moved by the plaintiffwith the following prayers : (A) restraining defendant No. 3 from going for training or to actas District Governor District No. 3010 or to take over as thedistrict Governor of the said District; (b) restraining the other defendants from entertaining defendantno. 3 as District Governor elect of District 3010; and (c) as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of thecase. ( 2 ) SHRI Ashok K. Ghosh, plaintiff, has filed a suit for declarationthat the election of Defendant No. 3 to the post of District Governor ofdistrict No. 3010 of defendant No. 1, held on 9-2-1992 be declared as voidand illegal and inoperative and for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 3 from acting as District Governor of Rotary Districtno. 3010 of Rotary International for the year 1993-94 in pursuance of theelection held on 9-2-1992. ( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated, the averments made in the plaint have been thatthe plaintiff is the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Prentice Hall ofindia Pvt. Ltd. , the largest publishing company in India and as publisher ofgreat repute the plaintiff has the privilege of receiving many awards from theprominent publishing associations of the country and the world. ( 4 ) ROTARY International is the Association of Rotary Clubs throughoutthe world and membership of the Rotary International consists of membersof Rotary Clubs, which continue to perform the obligations imposed by theconstitution of Rotary International, Rotary Club, Delhi, is one of theconstituents of Rotary International and the Manual of Procedure issued bythe Rotary International contains the text and constitution of bye-laws ofrotary International and the standard Rotary Club Constitution. Therotary Club of Delhi is part of the District No. 3010 (hereinafter referred toas District 301) and is a geographical territory in which Rotary Clubs areassociated for Rotary International Administrative purposes. Rotary Clubof Delhi of which the plaintiff is a member is a part of District 3010. ( 5 ) SELECTION of the District Governor nominee is to be made as perthe bye-laws of the Rotary International. Rotary Clubof Delhi of which the plaintiff is a member is a part of District 3010. ( 5 ) SELECTION of the District Governor nominee is to be made as perthe bye-laws of the Rotary International. First of all the selection of thedistrict Governor nominee is to be made by the Nominating Committee foreach District and District Governor is to notify to every constituent club inthe District calling upon the President of each club to propose the names ofthe persons duly qualified to be considered for selection. The plaintiff hasbeen a senior active member as per Section 3 of Article IV of the Bye-laws ofrotary International. Rotary International District 3010 is defendant No. 1while Shri J. R. Jindal, District Governor is defendant No. 2 and Shri Deepakkapur, the District Governor nominee is defendant No. 3, having beendeclared elected defeating the plaintiff. ( 6 ) IN pursuance of a notice by the defendant No. 2 asking the Clubin the districts to propose the candidates from their respective clubs forelection to the office of the District Governor nominee for the year 1993-94,the name of the plaintiff was unanimously proposed by the Rotary Club ofdelhi and the decision was conveyed to the District Governor, defendantno. 2. The Nominating Committee considered three names, i. e. , of theplaintiff, the defendant No. 3 and Dr. B. K. Daveson, and selected the plaintiff as official nominee for the year 1993-94. On 17-10-1991 the defendantno. 2 sent a communication of Presidents of all the Clubs informing themabout the unanimous decision of the Nominating Committee in terms ofsection 6 Clause a that the plaintiff had been selected as the unanimousdistrict Governor nominee for the year 1993-94. It was also mentioned inthe letter dated 17-10-1991 by Shri J. R. Jindal, defendant No. 2 that notwithstanding any nominations made by the Nominating Committee, any Club inthe District can propose a candidate for District Governor nominee whosename had previously been duly suggested by the Nominating Committee byfiling, with the District Governor, by not later than 30/11/1991,a resolution of the club adopted at regular meeting thereof nominating suchcandidate, duly certified by the Club Secretary and President. The name ofshri Deepak Kapur, defendant No. 3 was proposed by the Rotary Clubof Delhi South under Section 7. Accordingly, letter dated 7-12-1991 wasissued by the defendant No. 2 to all club Presidents thereby notifying thenames of Rtn. The name ofshri Deepak Kapur, defendant No. 3 was proposed by the Rotary Clubof Delhi South under Section 7. Accordingly, letter dated 7-12-1991 wasissued by the defendant No. 2 to all club Presidents thereby notifying thenames of Rtn. Ashok K. Ghosh, past President of the Rotary Club of Delhiand Rtn. Deepak Kapur, past President of Rotary Club of Delhi South, asrequired under Section 9 of Clause VIII of Procedure for Proposal of Districtgovernor Nominee. It was also intimated that candidates will be ballotedupon according to the procedure prescribed by Rotary International at thedistrict Conference on 9/02/1992. ( 7 ) A communication dated 6-1-1992 was sent to all the Presidents ofthe Clubs in the District by the defendant No. 2. thereby giving intimationthat for the selection of District Governor nominee there will be a meetingat Hotel Maurya Sheraton, New Delhi and Credential Certificates from theclubs were necessary for casting the votes. It was also intimated that thecredential Certificates were required to be deposited at the venue of thedistrict Conference between 2. 0 p. m. and 3. 00 p. m. on 8-2-1992 and thatonly those clubs who had cleared their dues of Rotary International as wellas district clubs dues would be entitled to cast their votes in the elections. Elections were accordingly held and the defendant No. 3 was declaredelected. The grievance of the plaintiff has been that there have been violations of the rules and regulations and the election has not been conducted inthe manner in which it ought to hive bean conducted. It is in these circumstances that the present suit has been filed, challenging the election. ( 8 ) THE suit has strongly been contested by the defendants. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have filed a joint written statement as also the reply tothe application; while separate written statement and reply have been filedby defendant No. 3. It has Inter alia been pleaded that there has not beenany violation of the rules and regulations and the election has been conducted in fair and impartial manner. A prayer has, therefore, been; made thatthe suit as also the application may be dismissed. ( 9 ) I have heard Shri K. K. Luthra, learned Counsel for the plaintiff;dr. A. M. Singhvi, learned Counsel for defendant Nos. 1 and 2, and Shri S. P. Aggarwal, learned Counsel for defendant No. 3. A prayer has, therefore, been; made thatthe suit as also the application may be dismissed. ( 9 ) I have heard Shri K. K. Luthra, learned Counsel for the plaintiff;dr. A. M. Singhvi, learned Counsel for defendant Nos. 1 and 2, and Shri S. P. Aggarwal, learned Counsel for defendant No. 3. ( 10 ) LEARNED Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that as per therules Ballot Arrangement Committee could consist of only three pursons butthis Rule had been violated by the defendant No. 2 on account of havingnominated Rtn. Rajesh Kumar as the fourth member. It has also beensubmitted by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff that the objection wasspecifically written by the plaintiff in his communication dated 13-3-1992addressed to the defendant No. 2 that Rtn. Rajesh Kumar was allowed tosit as a fourth member. Article XII (7) (g) (3) of the Manual of Procedure,1989 provides that there will be only three members of the committee to benominated by the District Governor. Learned Counsel for the defendantshave submitted that Rtn. Rajesh Kumar was not a member of the Ballotingarrangement Committee who was only provided to assist the Committee inview of the fact that there was limited time available with the Ballotingcommittee. Reference has also been made to the letter dated 18-31992 (exhibit P/5) written by the defendant No. 2 to the plaintiff in which it hasspecifically been stated that the District Secretaries were attached only toassist the Committee. It has also to be noted that there is a report dated15-2-1992 by Shri S P. Virmani to the District Governor to the effect thatthere are only three members of the Ballot Arrangement Committee, vis. S/s S. P. Virmani, Lalit Mehra and K. K. Bhatia. There is no mention in thisreport that Rtn. Rajesh Kumar was a member of the Ballot Arrangementcommittee. It is also pertinent to note that the plaintiff is from the Rotaryclub of Delhi and so was Shri S. P. Virmani, member of the Ballot Arrangement Committee. Shri Deepak Kapur, defendant No. 3 is from the Rotaryclub of Delhi South to which Shri Lalit Mehra belonged. It is. thus, clearthat the Club of the plaintiff was very well represented in the Ballot Arrangement Committee and there has not been anything in the report or otherwisefrom which it could prima facie be said that Shri Rajesh Kumar was associated as a fourth member of the Ballot Arrangement Committee. It is. thus, clearthat the Club of the plaintiff was very well represented in the Ballot Arrangement Committee and there has not been anything in the report or otherwisefrom which it could prima facie be said that Shri Rajesh Kumar was associated as a fourth member of the Ballot Arrangement Committee. ( 11 ) LEARNED Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that there wasopen canvassing by Rtn. Rajesh Kumar in favour of defendent No. 3 and inspite of an objection having been raised in this regard, no action was takenby the defendant No. 2 on account of which the election stands vitiated. Learned Counsel for the defendants have vehemently contested this proposition and have pleaded that, in fact, complaints were made from both thesides, i. e. on behalf of the plaintiff as also the defendant No. 3 that Rtn. Rajesh Kumar was canvassing and the moment this fact was brought to hisnotice, the defendant No. 2 took immediate steps for the removal of Rtn. Rajesh Kumar. It is thus, clear that there are allegations and it has to beverified only by way of evidence as to whether Rtn. Rajesh Kumar wascanvassing and, if so, for whom. At this stage, in my view. it cannot besaid that this would be a sufficient ground to hold that the election dated9-2-1992 stands vitiated. ( 12 ) LEARNED Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that as per therules and regulations of Rotary International, the result was required to beannounced but the defendant No. 2 failed to do so. It is also submitted thatthe details of the votes casted in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 were not announced and, thus, there has been a material violation of therules. Learned Counsel for the defendants have, on the other hand, submitted that the result of the election was, in fact, announced by the Districtgovernor, defendant No. 2, at about 5. 30 p. m. on 9-2-1992 and the merefact that the details of the votes casted in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 had not been given would make no difference. 30 p. m. on 9-2-1992 and the merefact that the details of the votes casted in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 had not been given would make no difference. Reference in thisregard has been made to the report dated 15-2-1992 under the signature ofshri S. P. Virmani, stating therein that for the post of District Governornominee, Shri Ashok Kumar Ghosh secured 54 votes while 72 votes werecasted in favour of Shri Deepak Kapur and that the result duly signed bythe members of the Ballot Arrangement Committee was communicated tothe District Governor at about 5. 00 p. m. and the result was announced. ( 13 ) IT is also pertinent to note that the magazine Indraprastha dated 11-2-1992 published by the plaintiff himself gave the news that Rtn. past President Deepak Kapur elected District Governor nominee 1993-94 forrotary International District 3010. There is a letter dated 10-2-1992exhibit P/4, written by Shri J. R. Jindal, defendant No. 2, to the plaintiffstating therein that the result was announced at the close of the conferenceon 9-2-1992 at 5. 30 p. m Can in these circumstances it be said that theresult was not announced by the defendant No. 3 on 9-2-1992, the day onwhich the election was held ? The answer is in the negative. Even otherwise, can it be said that the election result has been materially affected onaccount of the alleged omission on the part of the defendant No. 2 in givingthe details of the votes secured by the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 in theelection. My answer at this stage is in the negative. ( 14 ) LEARNED Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the ballotpaper was defective, inasmuch as the plaintiff was not shown in it as theofficial nominee of the Balloting Committee and on this account the resulthas been materially effected and it was not made clear to the voters that theplaintiff was the official nominee. The question for consideration is as towhether there is any such requirement. Page 63 of the Manual of procedure, 1989 relates to elections of Rotary International and it is provided thatall ballots for the election of a general officer of Rotary International shallinclude first the name of the candidate selected by the Nominating Committee, if any. The question for consideration is as towhether there is any such requirement. Page 63 of the Manual of procedure, 1989 relates to elections of Rotary International and it is provided thatall ballots for the election of a general officer of Rotary International shallinclude first the name of the candidate selected by the Nominating Committee, if any. followed in alphabetical order by the names of the other candidates, except that in those instances when no person has been proposed bythe Nominating Committee the names of all the candidates shall be rotatedon the ballot. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has not been able to pointout any provision under which such a mention was required to be made onballot paper itself. It may, however, be mentioned that in the communication dated 17-10-1991 (letter Exhibit P/1 ). Shri J. R. Jindal, defendantno. 2, had specifically informed all the Presidents of the Club that Shriashok K. Ghosh, plaintiff, has been unanimously selected for Districtgovernor nominee for the year 1993-94 and vide letter dated 2-12-1991 (Exhibit P/2), all the Presidents were informed that the plaintiff was selectedby the Nominating Committee while Deepak Kumar was proposed undersection 7 by the Rotary Club of Delhi South. It is also partinent to notethat the voters for this election are not the individuals but the clubs. Inthese circumstances, prima facie, it cannot be said that there has been anyviolation of any rule by the defendant No. 2 by not mentioning on the ballotpaper that the plaintiff was the official nominee of the Nominating Committee for the post of District Governor. It is pertinent to note that for theelection of Rotary International President and Rotary International Directorsthere is a specific requirement in the manual itself that the ballot paper muststate as to who is the nominee selected by the Nominating Committee. Thereis, however, no such rule for the election of District Governor nominee. Therequirement of Article XII (7. 8 and 7. 9) has been complied with in theinstant case by the defendant No. 2 by issuing letters Exhibits P/1 and P/2. ( 15 ) LEARNED Counsel for the plaintiff has also submitted that therehave been casting of votes by unauthorised persons, which has materiallyaffected the result and on this account the plaintiff is entitled to injunctionprayed for. 8 and 7. 9) has been complied with in theinstant case by the defendant No. 2 by issuing letters Exhibits P/1 and P/2. ( 15 ) LEARNED Counsel for the plaintiff has also submitted that therehave been casting of votes by unauthorised persons, which has materiallyaffected the result and on this account the plaintiff is entitled to injunctionprayed for. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the plaintiffthat Shri Satish Jain, President of Rotary Club of Gurgaon casted the secondvote in place of Shri R. S. Malik, Secretary, who did not come to attend themeeting. Similarly, he has submitted Shri T. R. Saluja, President of therotary Club of Delhi University had casted the second vote in place of hissecretary Shri Subhash Gambhir and Shri A. P. Khurana. President of therotary Club of Delhi Sainik Farms casted the second vote in place ofhissecretary Shri Arvind Minocha. He has, thus, submitted that persons whowere not authorised to exercise the right of vote have been permitted to castsecond votes which were not permissible under the Rules. It is pertinentto note that the voter in the instant case is the club and not individuals. Credentical Certificates have been filed on record which indicate that thesecredentical Certificates have been signed by the President and Secretary ofeach Club. A perusal of the Credential Certificates of the Rotary Club ofgurgaon shows that it was in favour of the President and Secretary and itwas signed by them. A letter dated 9-2-1992 was written by Shri R. S. Malik, Secretary, addressed to the Chairman, Election Committee, stalingtherein that he was unable to come to Delhi due to unavoidable circumstances and authorised President, Rtn. Satish K. Jain to cast vote on hisbehalf for the election of District Governor nominee 1993-94. Similarly,there is a letter dated 9-2-1992 by Shri T. R. Saluja, President, Rotary Clubdelhi University, addressed to the District Governor, defendant No. 2stating therein that one vote was to be casted by him and another by hissecretary, Shri Subhash Gambhir, who could not come, having fallen sickand a prayer was made that he may be permitted to cast the second vote. Similarly, Shri A. P. Khurana, President, Rotary Club of Delhi Sainik Farmswrote a letter to District Governor, defendant No. 2, stating therein thatshri Arvind Minocha, his Secretary, had suddenly to leave for Chandigarhon account of which he was unable to cast his vote and so prayed that hemay be permitted to cast the second vote on behalf of his Secretary. Allthese three applications were allowed by defendant No. 2 and accordinglythree persons were authorised to cast the second vote. The question forconsideration is to whether there is real violation of the rule and whetherit has materially affected the result of the election. It is not disputed thateach Club is entitled to one vote for each 25 or major fraction thereof of itsmembers, honorary members excluded, based on the number of members ofthe Club as on the last date of the month preceding that in which theselection is to bo made and the candidate receiving a majority of the votescast is to be declared to be nominated to the office of the District Governorof the District. In the instant case the clubs had authorised the Presidentsand Secretaries of the three Clubs to cast one vote each for the Districtgovernor nominee. These authorisations/credential Certificates were signedby the Presidents and Secretaries. The three persons being unable to bepresent personally for casting votes, the votes were allowed to be casted ontheir behalf by the representatives authorised by the Club to cast the vote. Prima facie, there does not appear to be am plausible objection to the same. In any case, can it be said that by permitting the casting of three votes bythe nominees of the three clubs, i. e. , Rotary Club of Gurgaon, Rotary Clubdelhi University and Rotary Club Sainik Farms the election stands vitiated. I do not find any cogent reasons to come to this conclusion at this stage. Itis also pertinent to note that the plaintiff had secured 54 votes as against 72secured by defendant No. 3. Even is these three votes are excluded fromthe votes casted in favour of defendant No. 3, the result would remain thesame keeping in view the margin of votes. In these circumstances, I amclearly of the view that the election cannot be said to have been vitiated onthis account. Even is these three votes are excluded fromthe votes casted in favour of defendant No. 3, the result would remain thesame keeping in view the margin of votes. In these circumstances, I amclearly of the view that the election cannot be said to have been vitiated onthis account. ( 16 ) LEARNED Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the Clubshaving outstandings against them have been permitted to cast vote onaccount of which the election stands vitiated. He has submitted that therewere in tact eight clubs, viz. Rotary Club of Delhi Down Town (having twovotes); Rotary Club of Delhi Rohini (one vote); Rotary Club of Delhi Southwest (one vote; Rotary Club of Hapur Central (two votes); Rotary Club ofmahendergarh (one vote); Rotary Club of Narnaul (one vote); and Rotaryclub of Noida (one vote ). He has. thus. submitted that eleven votes havebeen permitted to be casted through these could not be permitted on accountof the Clubs being in arrears. Learned Counsel for the defendants 1 and 2has, on the other hand, submitted that the latest report was received bydefendant No. 2 on 4. 3. 1992 which indicates that the aforesaid eight clubswere in arrears. He has also submitted that there was no prior informationwith the defendant No. 2 who, as per the list available, permitted the clubsto exercise the right of franchise and, so, there is no illegality committed bythe defendant No. 2 in the elections. Admittedly, there are two kinds ofdues payable by each Rotary Club. One is the Rotary International dues,which are payable only in U. S. Dollars by each club directly to the Rotaryinternational in Evanston, U. S. A. at the rate of U. S. dollar 14. 50 per halfyear per member of the club and the second is called district dues which arepayable by each club to the District Governor and varying according to thestrength of members of each clubs. Reference in this regard can be made topages 209 and 210 of the Manual. The clubs are required to make the payment directly to the Rotary International for which the record has to bemaintained at the Head Office. A consolidated list of the defaulters is prepared and circulated to the District Governors. In the instant cast it hasspecifically been claimed by the defendant No. 2 that the said list containingthe names of the defaulter clubs was received on 4. 3. A consolidated list of the defaulters is prepared and circulated to the District Governors. In the instant cast it hasspecifically been claimed by the defendant No. 2 that the said list containingthe names of the defaulter clubs was received on 4. 3. 1992, i. e. much after theholding of the elections on 9. 2. 1992. Can in these circumstances it bepresumed that the defendant No. 2 or for that purpose the Balloting Committeehave committed a lapse in permitting the casting of votes by unauthorisedpersons. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that this information could be available to the defendant No. 2 from the office of the Rotaryinternational in Delhi. Merely on account of the inaction of the defendantno. 1, it cannot be said that there is violation of the Rules and that theresult was materially been affected. The matter will have to be gone into byway of evidence but prima facie it appears that the result cannot be said tohave been vitiated on this account. There will have to be a finding on thebasis of the evidence which may be led by the parties to conclude whetherdefendant No. 2 had the information with regard to the default being committed by these eight clubs. Learned Counsel for the defendants have submitted that, in fact, every year such list is received only after the holding ofthe elections and the clubs have been making the payments of arrears to therotary International. We are not concerned here with the practice in theprevious year or in the year 1993. But the question that will have to begone into during trial would be as to whether there has been any default infollowing the procedure and permitting unauthorised clubs to cast vote. Itmay also be noted that there were eleven votes of these clubs and even ifthese eleven votes of these clubs and even if these eleven votes are excludedalongwith the three votes referred to in the earlier part of the order, there isstill majority of votes in favour of defendant No. 3. Learned Counsel forthe plaintiff has referred to the judgment dated 10. 5. 1985 by Wadhwa J. insuit No. 1435 of 1984. It was a suit by Kedar Nath Baba thereby challenging the election of Arjun Singh as President of Northern India Refrigerationand Air conditioning Trade Association, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The election was held on 25. 8. 5. 1985 by Wadhwa J. insuit No. 1435 of 1984. It was a suit by Kedar Nath Baba thereby challenging the election of Arjun Singh as President of Northern India Refrigerationand Air conditioning Trade Association, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The election was held on 25. 8. 84 in which the plaintiffsecured 51 votes while 54 votes were polled in favour of Arjun Singh, defendant. There was, thus, a margin of three votes only. There was a specificfinding in the said case that four votes were invalid and, thus, had materiallyaffected the result of the election of the President, Besides claiming thesetting aside of the election of Arjun Singh as the President, a prayer wasmade by the plaintiff Kedar Nath Baba that he should be allowed to function as the President of the Association. The facts of the said case are, thus,entirely different and not applicable to the present case. There is no prayerby the plaintiff that he should be declared as elected and there is no specificfinding with regard to the casting of invalid votes. It may also be noted thateven considering the number of votes which have been challenged, the marginis so much, vast that the election cannot bs said to have been materiallyaffected. This judgment, thus, cannot be of any help to the plaintiff at this stage. ( 17 ) LEARNED Counsel for the defendants have submitted that theplaintiff has no right to challenge the election of the District Governornominee since only the clubs are the voters and nominations have also to beby the Clubs. It is, thus. submitted that if-the plaintiff was aggrieved by theresult of the elections, he could have approached his own club or any otherclub to challenge the election, but he was not competent to challenge thesame in the Court. I do not agree with this submission. It is admitted caseof the parties that the plaintiff was selection by Nominating Committee asofficial nominee for the post of District Governor. The District Governornominee becomes a member of the Rotary International to which all theclubs are affiliated. Rotary International is the Association of Rotary Clubsthroughout the world and its membership consists of members of Rotaryclubs which continue to perform the obligations imposed by the constitutional documents. Rotary International Protocol, as mentioned at page 59of the Manual, gives the order of precedence in which the District Governoris mentioned at the fag end. Rotary International is the Association of Rotary Clubsthroughout the world and its membership consists of members of Rotaryclubs which continue to perform the obligations imposed by the constitutional documents. Rotary International Protocol, as mentioned at page 59of the Manual, gives the order of precedence in which the District Governoris mentioned at the fag end. Once the plaintiff was nominated by thenominating Committee he became the official candidate and could become amember of the Rotary International in his personal capacity. A valueableright, thus, accrues to a candidate who is nominated by the Nominatingcommittee and, in these circumstances, I am prtma facie of the view that therelief cannot be declined only on this ground. ( 18 ) LEARNED Counsel for the defendants have submitted that alternative and efficacious remedy was available to the plaintiff by way of approaching the Election Review Committee and having not exhausted the same thepresent suit could not be filed. An Election Review Committee is appointedannually by the President which functions in accordance with the terms ofreference and it consists of nine members, one of whom is appointed aschairman by the President. Procedure has been prescribed as to how theelection Review Committee is to proceed and examine the complaints relating to the elections to the office of the Rotary International. Article XIISection 7 of the Manual of Procedure deals with the qualifications of adistrict Governor and also even after the receipt of the signed statement froma nominee for the office of the District Governor. If the Board has cause tobelieve that the nominee would be unable to fulfil satisfactorily the duties andresponsibilities of the office as provided in the bye-laws, the Board may suspend such nomination and could reject the nomination. It is the admittedcase of the plaintiff that he had sent copies of the letters exchanged betweenthe plaintiff and defendant No. 2 to the concerned officers of the Rotaryinternational for their information and necessary action, as is mentioned inthe letter dated 13. 5. 1992. by the plaintiff, addressed to the defendant No. 2. The receipt of the correspondence by the Rotary International is also provedon record from the letter dated 6. 4. 1992. from the Executive Service Officerrotary International, addressed to the plaintiff, acknowledging the receipt ofletter and enclosures sent by the plaintiff to Rotary International. 5. 1992. by the plaintiff, addressed to the defendant No. 2. The receipt of the correspondence by the Rotary International is also provedon record from the letter dated 6. 4. 1992. from the Executive Service Officerrotary International, addressed to the plaintiff, acknowledging the receipt ofletter and enclosures sent by the plaintiff to Rotary International. It is theadmitted case of the parties that the defendant No. 3 is only a Districtgovernor nominee and the election is yet to take place in the Convention tobe held from June 13 to June 16. 1993 in Orlando Florida (Page III of themanual ). It is only after the nomination is approned in the Convention thatone gets elected to the office of the District Governor. In any case, I do notthink it necessary at this stage to come to a positive finding on this point inview of my conclusions on the objections on merits. ( 19 ) LEARNED Counsel for the defendants have submitted that therehas been inordinate delay on the part of the plaintiff to file the suit and hehas not taken appropriate action within 30 days to challenge the election. Admittedly, the election took place on 9. 2. 1992 and the present suit was filedon 23. 5. 92. Submissions of the learned Counsel for the defendants has beenthat the plaintiff came to know of the result on 9. 2. 1992 and there is noplausible explanation as to why he waited for more than three months tocome to the Court. Learned Counsel for the defendants has, however, notbeen able to point out any specific limitation provided in the Manual forchallenging the election. Admittedly, the plaintiff had sent copies of thecorrespondence exchanged between him and defendant No. 2 to the Rotaryinternational. It is different that he has not pursued the matter further withthe Rotary International. However, in the absence of any specific limitation, it cannot be said that there has been inordinate delay on the part of theplaintiff to file the suit on 21. 5. 1993. This submission of the defendant istherefore, rejected. ( 20 ) LEARNED Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that rules ofsecrecy were not followed in the election and mirrors were fitted all aroundthe hall where the election was held and on this account the election cannotbe said to be in accordance with the rules. 5. 1993. This submission of the defendant istherefore, rejected. ( 20 ) LEARNED Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that rules ofsecrecy were not followed in the election and mirrors were fitted all aroundthe hall where the election was held and on this account the election cannotbe said to be in accordance with the rules. Learned Counsel for the defendants has submitted that rules of secrecy were very will followed and therewas no such complaint and has referred to the averments made in the writtenstatement. This is a matter which would need investigation and prima facieit cannot be said that there was any violation of the rules of secrecy, especially when the votes are the clubs and the Credential Certificates are issuedunder the signatures of the President and Secretary of each club, authorisingthe President, Secretary of the members to vote. ( 21 ) IN view of my aforesaid discussion, primafacie I do not find anyground for the grant of injunction, restraining the defendant No. 3 fromgoing for training or to act as District Governor or restraining the otherdefendants from entertaining the defendant No. 3 as District Governor elect. The application, therefore, stands dismissed. ( 22 ) NEEDLESS to mention that the observations made in this order areonly for the purpose of the disposal of this application and will have nobearing on the final decision, which would be arrived at on the basis ofevidence which may be lead by the parties. I. A. 80718192 ( 23 ) THIS application has been disposed of vide separate order onrecord dated 7. 7. 1993. S. No. 1988192 ( 24 ) SINCE, now, I am sitting on the appellate side, the case is to belised before the Hon ble Judge sitting on the Original side. ( 25 ) TO be listed before the Hon ble Judge Incharge (Original Side),subject to the orders of the Hon ble the Chief Justice on 19/07/1993.