B. N. CHATURVEDI, J. ( 1 ) BY instant application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the plaintiff seeks an interim order to the following effect:- " (A) pass an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants restraining them from holding any extraordinary meeting of the General council on 23. 02. 2005 or on any other dates in terms of letter dated 8. 2. 2005. (b) stay the operation of the letter dated 8th February, 2005 issued by defendant No. 1 and direct defendants not to create any further obstacles or hurdles in the conduct of the 27th National Championship on 24th to 27th February, 2005 at Avadi (Chennai ). (c) to issue mandatory directions, directing defendant No. 2 to release the grant-in-aid in favour of the host State, i. e. , Shooting Ball Association of Tamilnadu (Regd.) by issuing a demand draft from the Federation s bank account for a sum of Rs. 8 lacs as part of the expenses to be incurred by the host State in conducting the 27th National championship on 24th to 27th February, 2005 at Avadi (Chennai ). " ( 2 ) THE plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are Hony. Secretary General, president and Treasurer respectively of Shooting Ball Federation of India, which is registered under The Societies Registration Act, 1860. The aims and objects of the federation are incorporated in its memorandum. ( 3 ) 27th National Championship of the Federation was scheduled to be held on 24th to 27th of February, 2005 in Tamilnadu. The same was, however, postponed vide impugned letter dated 18. 2. 2005 issued by defendant No. 1 for the reasons stated therein. By the same letter, defendant No. 1 has convened an Extraordinary Meeting of General Council of the Federation on 23rd of February, 2005 at 11. 00 a. m. At C- 26, Qutab Institutional Area, Near Qutab Hotel, New Delhi, to discuss the `progress and future of the game and for removal of `hindrance in the way of the Federation or game . 00 a. m. At C- 26, Qutab Institutional Area, Near Qutab Hotel, New Delhi, to discuss the `progress and future of the game and for removal of `hindrance in the way of the Federation or game . ( 4 ) THE plaintiff challenges the holding of proposed Extraordinary Meeting of the General Council on the aforesaid date and time on the grounds that the president has no power to issue a meeting notice, that there are no emergent circumstances warranting convening of Extraordinary General Council Meeting, and that 15 days clear notice has not been given for such meeting as required under the rules and Regulations of the Federation. ( 5 ) THE defendants maintain that no illegality has been committed in convening the Extraordinary General Council Meeting on the aforesaid date and time as the defendant No. 1 being the President of the Federation is fully competent to convene the same. It was asserted that notice of the Extraordinary General Council meeting has been convened with 15 days clear notice. ( 6 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. ( 7 ) AT the hearing, Dr. Shyamla Pappu, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff, restricted her submissions for grant of injunction in terms of prayer 4. (a) only and did not press for reliefs (b) and (c ). ( 8 ) LETTER dated 8. 2. 2005 from defendant No. 1 convening Extraordinary general Council Meeting on 23rd of February, 2005 is being questioned primarily on the grounds that the defendant No. 1 lacks competence to issue such a notice and that there is no 15 days clear notice of such meeting in terms of Clause 13. (2) of the federation s Rules and Regulations. Learned senior counsel, appearing for the plaintiff, argued that in the event of Hony. Secretary General refusing to issue notice on being required to do so by the President, Extraordinary Meeting of the General council could only be convened under clause 13. (4) of the Rules and Regulations. ( 9 ) UNDER Clause 13. (1), Extraordinary Meeting of the General Council may be convened by the President or by the Hony. Secretary General in consultation with the President as and when necessary. Evidently, the President is not required to consult the Hony. (4) of the Rules and Regulations. ( 9 ) UNDER Clause 13. (1), Extraordinary Meeting of the General Council may be convened by the President or by the Hony. Secretary General in consultation with the President as and when necessary. Evidently, the President is not required to consult the Hony. Secretary General for convening an Extraordinary Meeting of the general Council and he is competent enough to do so on his own. Of course, if hony. Secretary General is to convene such a meeting, he cannot do so without consultation with the President. No doubt, in terms of Clause 3 of the Rules and regulations, Hony. Secretary General is obliged to issue a notice of the meeting, this does not imply that in case the President so decides, he cannot issue a notice for convening the same, particularly if the Hony. Secretary General refuses or omits to issue it on being required in that regard by the President. Clause 13. (4) is not in the nature of a provision providing for convening of a meeting in the eventuality of refusal on the part of Hony. Secretary General to convene the same as in the given situation. It rather makes a provision to enable the 2/3 members to seek requisitioning of a meeting in a situation where on being required to do so, the hony. Secretary General fails to convene the meeting within a reasonable time. Thus, impugned letter is not open to challenge for lack of authority on the part of defendant no. 1 to issue the same. ( 10 ) AS far as requirement of 15 days clear notice in terms of Clause 13. (2) of the Rules and Regulations is concerned, the impugned letter appears to fail the test on this count. The letter purports to have been issued on 8th of February, 2005 for an extraordinary General Council Meeting to be held on 23rd of February, 2005 at 11. 00 a. m. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff pointed out that excluding the date of issue and the date of meeting, it would work out to only 13 days, which is clearly in violation of Clause 13. (2) rendering the notice invalid. There is substance in the plea that for 15 days clear notice, the day of issue of notice and the day when the meeting is scheduled to be held, both are to be excluded. (2) rendering the notice invalid. There is substance in the plea that for 15 days clear notice, the day of issue of notice and the day when the meeting is scheduled to be held, both are to be excluded. That way, the impugned letter falls short of 15 days clear notice even if it is to be reckoned from the date of dispatch itself, as contended by the learned counsel for the defendants. Since the impugned letter dated 8. 2. 2005 does not satisfy the condition of 15 days clear notice, a prima facie case is made out to injunct the defendants from holding such a meeting pursuant thereto. The purpose of holding such an Extraordinary General Council meeting, as spelt out in the impugned letter, does not appear to be of an emergent nature and, therefore, deferment of such a meeting until 15 days clear notice, as required under Clause 13. (2) is issued, is not going to make any material difference as far as functioning of Federation is concerned. ( 11 ) IN view of above, the application is granted and the defendants are restrained from holding Extraordinary Meeting of the General Council on 23rd of february, 2005 or on any other date pursuant to letter dated 8. 2. 2005. ( 12 ) THE application is disposed of. ( 13 ) THE effect of this order shall be immediately intimated to the concerned members by the plaintiff. DASTI to the parties under the signature of Court Master. .