JUDGMENT: BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J (1.0 This first miscellaneous appeal is at the instance of the defendants in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and is directed against Order No. 12 dated 26th February, 2008 passed by the learned Judge, Twelve Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 467 of 2007, thereby allowing an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff- respondents after rejecting an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code filed by present appellants. By the order impugned, the learned Trial Judge made the earlier interim order granted by it absolute till the disposal of the suit. (2.0 Being dissatisfied, the defendants have come up with the present first miscellaneous appeal. (3.0 The plaintiffs-respondents filed the aforesaid suit thereby praying for the following relief: "(a) A decree for declaration that since there is no existence of the Steering Committee in the Constitution of the Defendant Mahasabha, the said purported Steering Committee has no right to take any decision; (b) A decree for declaration that entire process for dissolving the plaintiff No. 1 as adopted by the defendant No.1 is vitiated by irregularities and as such the decisions taken on 24th May, 2007 by the Steering Committee of the defendant No.1 is bad, illegal, null, void-ab-initio and liable to be cancelled and/or delivered up and not binding upon the plaintiffs; (c) A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men, agent, servant and associates from giving into effect and/or further effect to the letter dated 25th May, 2007 written by the Working President of the Gandhabanik Mahasabha, the defendant No.2 here in the letter pad of the General Secretary of the defendant No. 1 and to take any steps and/or further steps in aid of the said letter dated 25th May, 2007. (d) Costs of the suit; (e) Any other relief or reliefs as the plaintiffs are entitled to law and equity." (4.0 The case made out by the plaintiffs-respondents may be summed up thus: (a) The plaintiff No. 1, namely, Gandhabanik Mahasabha, Bardhaman Sakha Samity, (hereinafter referred to as the samity) is an unregistered society and also a branch and/or affiliated unit of the parent body of the Central Unit of Gandhabanik Mahasabha (hereinafter referred to as the Mahasabha) the defendant No.1. Although, the plaintiff No.1 is an affiliated unit of the defendant No.1, it has separate rules and regulations of its own and the body of the plaintiff No.1, Samity, is also selected by its own members and accordingly, it had no nexus with the defendant No.1. (b) As per rules and regulations of the plaintiff No.1, samity, the formation of branch office outside the purview of Calcutta is permitted and the plaintiff No.1, samity, had been formed accordingly and became affiliated under the defendant No. 1: (c) The defendant No.1 is the parent body of the plaintiff No.1, samity, which is governed under its own constitution. The body of the defendant No.1, Mahasabha, consists of one President, one Ex-President, maximum number of eight Vice-Presidents, one General Secretary, five Secretaries, six Assistant Secretaries, one Treasurer, one Accountant and maximum number of fifty-five members of the Executive Committee, which includes at least total number of three women, one President, one Secretary and one nominated member of each branch committee. (d) In terms of the aforesaid Rule, the President and the Secretary and any one nominated member of the plaintiff No. 1, samity, can be a member of the Executive Committee of the defendant No.1, Mahasabha, and therefore, a member of the plaintiff No.1, samity, shall have the power to be associated with the other association. (e) There was no bar for a member to act and hold the post under both the plaintiff No.1 and the defendant No.1. (f) As per the object and function of the plaintiff No.1, samity, it arranged Gandheswari Puja every year and celebrated Independence Day, Republic Day and also arranged various social service oriented programme including awarding the successful students and accordingly, the plaintiff No.1 was running its activity effectively and by following the true spirit of the defendant No.1, Mahasabha: (g) On 7th April, 2007 the defendant No.2, the Working President of the defendant No.1, Mahasabha, sent a letter to the plaintiff No. 2, the President of the plaintiff No.1, samity and enquired of the authenticity of the news about formation of another society by the plaintiff No.1. The plaintiff No.1, samity, answered the said letter. The plaintiff No.1, samity, answered the said letter. (h) On 25th June, 2006, in the seventh Annual General Meeting of the plaintiff No.1, samity, the general members, in presence of the defendant No.2 and the General Secretary of the defendant No.1, had taken two resolutions out of which one was to form a Trust Board in order to protect the properties of the samity. Such resolution was placed before the members of the samity and all the members unanimously accepted the same. In the said meeting, it was also decided that after the meeting of the newly selected committee, the said decision would be sent to the defendant No.1, Mahasabha, for its approval. (i) By the said resolution taken in the Annual General Meeting, the committee members of the plaintiff No.1, samity, asked the defendant No.1, Mahasabha to inform about their opinion. In the Executive Committee meeting of the plaintiff No.1, samity, dated 19th May, 2007, it was decided to settle the dispute with the defendant No.1 by sitting together, and accordingly, the said proposal was sent to the defendants but the same was refused by the defendants and ultimately, the plaintiff was informed that the Steering Committee by a meeting dated 24th May, 2007 dissolved the entire plaintiff No.1, samity, along with all the members of the Managing Committee. (j) The aforesaid decision of the defendant No.1, Mahasabha, was illegal and not in accordance with law, Hence the suit. (5.0 After filing of the said suit, the plaintiff on the self-same allegations, filed an application for temporary injunction for restraining the defendants, their men, agent and servants from giving effect and/or further effect to the letter dated 25th May, 2007 written by the defendant No.2 and/or to take any steps and/or further step. (6.0 On such application, the learned Trial Judge issued a notice to show cause, why the prayer of the plaintiffs should not be granted and also granted an ad interim order of injunction in terms of the aforesaid prayer. (6.0 On such application, the learned Trial Judge issued a notice to show cause, why the prayer of the plaintiffs should not be granted and also granted an ad interim order of injunction in terms of the aforesaid prayer. (7.0 The defendants entered appearance and filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure thereby praying for vacating the ad interim order of injunction dated 10th September, 2007 and the defence taken by the appellants may be summarised thus: (1) The plaintiff itself has severed the relationship with the defendant No. 1, Mahasabha, and in spite of demand of explanation as to its conduct, the plaintiff No.1 having failed to give proper explanation, the Steering committee of the defendant No.1 decided to dissolve the committee of the plaintiff No.1. (2) The plaintiff tried to convert Gandhabanik Mahasabha, Bardhaman, to a separate society under separate registration number against which Mahasabha took step in time for formation of another society in the name and style as Bardhaman Gandhabanik Mahasabha, Bardhaman, under a separate registration number. (3) The plaintiff formed a new committee in the name and style of Bardhaman Gandhabanik Mahasabha Bardhaman and got the same registered under the Societies Registration Act in the month of January, 2007. The then Secretary of Gandhabanik Mahasabha, Bardhaman Sakha Samity, in a meeting of the Working Committee on 1st April, 2007, as the so-called representative of the plaintiff No.1 has signed on behalf of the Bardhaman Gandhabanik Mahasabha but not as a Secretary of Gandhabanik Mahasabha, Bardhaman Sakha Samity. In view of such conduct, the defendant No.1 wanted to know the fact regarding formation of the Bardhaman Gandhabanik Mahasabha from the plaintiff No.2 but there was no response on the part of the plaintiff No.2. (4) The plaintiff No.2 never requested the Secretary of the defendant No. 1 for fixing a date of meeting as alleged. After the dissolution of the erstwhile Committee on 24th May, 2007, the ad hock Committee was constituted and thereafter, full-fledged regular committee was constituted on 16th June, 2007 and the said committee had been functioning under the Bardhaman Sakha Samity of the defendant No. 1. Therefore, until and unless by a decree of the Court, the said regular committee which has been functioning since 16th June, 2007 is declared illegal and unauthorised, the injunction, as prayed for by the plaintiffs was not maintainable. Therefore, until and unless by a decree of the Court, the said regular committee which has been functioning since 16th June, 2007 is declared illegal and unauthorised, the injunction, as prayed for by the plaintiffs was not maintainable. The suit was otherwise not maintainable and on that ground alone, the injunction application was liable to be dismissed. (8.0 As mentioned earlier, the learned Trial Judge by the order impugned herein has allowed the application for injunction after dismissing the application for vacating the interim order. (9.0 Being dissatisfied, the defendants have come up with the present appeal. (10) After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we find that the learned Trial Judge after narrating the submissions of both the parties has simply recorded that the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the defendants failed to produce any rules to show that the parent body, namely, Gandhabanik Mahasabha, can interfere with the day-to-day administration of the affiliated body in the district. The learned Trial Judge further recorded that the members of the affiliated body may form a society and obtain registration number without violating the rules and regulations of the parent body and thus, he was of the view that the application under Order 39 Rule 4 had no merit and consequently, he allowed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code by making the earlier interim order dated 11th September, 2007 absolute. (11.0 After going through the materials on record, we find that the respondents prayed for temporary injunction restraining the appellants and their men, agent, servants and associates from giving effect and/or further effect to the letter dated 25th May, 2007 written by the Working President of the Gandhabanik Mahasabha. From the Rules of the appellant, annexed to the application, it appears that in different villages, areas under the various police stations or towns, Sakha Samity can be constituted but the number of such Sakha Samity should not be more than one in one of such areas, and the name of the Sakha Samity should be according to the place where it is situated; for instance, if any Sakha Samity is situated in Bardhaman, it should be named as Gandhabanik Mahasabha, Bardhaman Sakha Samity. In the case before us, the plaintiff has formed an association and has registered the same in a different name, namely, Bardhaman Gandhabanik Mahasabha, Bardhaman, without mentioning that it is a Sakha Samity of Gandhabanik Mahasabha. The Sakha Samitfes owed their existence to the Gandhabanik Mahasabha inasmuch as the rules and regulations and bye-laws which governed the Sakha Samities were made by the Gandhabanik Mahasabha and published by it. It appears that the plaintiff-respondent could not produce any material showing that their resolution to get the Bardhaman Gandhabanik Mahasabha, Bardhaman, registered was ever sent to the appellant for its approval. (12.0 We, therefore, find that the prima facie the plaintiff has violated the rules of the defendant No. 1 by registering a different society by borrowing the name of the defendant No.1 and at the same time, violated the rules of the defendant No.1 by not describing it as the Sakha Samity of the defendant No.1 without taking its approval. (13.0 Moreover, Gandhabanik Mahasabha, Bardhaman Sakha Samity is an unregistered society and that being the situation, the plaintiff No.1 could not itself bring the suit nor could it be represented by the Secretary to sue in the common interests of all the members unless and until either all the members of the committee individually joined as the plaintiffs or leave of the Court under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure was taken. We gave repeated opportunity to the respondent to place materials that leave under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code had been obtained but the learned Advocate for the respondent could not produce any material. (14.0 We further find substance in the contention of the appellant that in the meeting of the Working Committee held on 1st October, 2007, Shri Shrisendu Sadhu who claims to have the authority to represent Gandhabanik Mahasabha, Bardhaman Sakha Samity, put his signature as the member of the Bardhaman Gandhabanik Mahasabha, Bardhaman, thereby clearly disowning his authority as the Secretary of the Sakha Samity. (15.0 It further appears that the letter dated 7th April, 2007 appearing as Annexure-"A" of the stay application reveals that the appellant No.2 specifically disputed the authority of the plaintiff No.2 to register a society in the name of Bardhaman Gandhabanik Mahasabha but the said letter was never replied to. (15.0 It further appears that the letter dated 7th April, 2007 appearing as Annexure-"A" of the stay application reveals that the appellant No.2 specifically disputed the authority of the plaintiff No.2 to register a society in the name of Bardhaman Gandhabanik Mahasabha but the said letter was never replied to. (16.0 We, therefore, find that in the fact of the present case, it has been established that prima facie the suit was not maintainable without taking leave under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code. It further appears that the plaintiff being a Sakha Samity of the defendant No.1, could not assert its right separately by forming a separate society and that too, in the name of the defendant No.1. and in such circumstances, the action taken by the parent body cannot be said to be unjust. We, therefore, find that the learned Trial Judge erred in law in not following the well-accepted principles which are required to be followed in disposing of an application for temporary injunction. It is apparent that the plaintiff has no prima facie case; moreover, the balance of convenience and inconvenience was definitely in favour of the refusing the prayer for injunction, inasmuch as, the decision which has already been given effect to cannot be undone by order of injunction in this type of a case where a Sakha Samity although prays for declaration as such nevertheless asserts independent identity in violation of the rules of the parent body. (17.0 Therefore, it could not be said that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury if the resolution taken by the defendant, the parent body, is given effect to; on the other hand, if the suit fails in the long run, it will be the defendant No.1 who will suffer for the misdeeds of the plaintiff, though it will be acting as a Sakha Samity of the defendant No.1 against its wish. Moreover, the learned Trial Judge, by granting the temporary injunction has virtually given the entire relief claimed in the suit and the committee having already been dissolved, the grant of injunction amounts to grant the relief in mandatory form by bringing back the status quo ante which is granted in the rarest of the rare cases. Moreover, the learned Trial Judge, by granting the temporary injunction has virtually given the entire relief claimed in the suit and the committee having already been dissolved, the grant of injunction amounts to grant the relief in mandatory form by bringing back the status quo ante which is granted in the rarest of the rare cases. (18.0 We, therefore, set aside the order impugned and hold that in the fact of the present case, the plaintiff having failed to prove the prima facie case was not entitled to get any order of temporary injunction. (19.0 The appeal is, thus, allowed. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs. Rudrendra Nath Banerjee, J.: I agree. Later: Let xerox certified copy of this judgment be given to the parties within a week from the date of making of such application. Appeal allowed.