Judgment : BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. (1) This first miscellaneous appeal is at the instance of the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and is directed against Order No. 31 dated 26th March, 2008, passed by the learned Trial Judge thereby dismissing an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the appellants on contested herein. (2) Being dissatisfied, the plaintiffs have come up with the present first miscellaneous appeal. The appellants filed against the respondents in the City Civil Court at Calcutta, a suit being Title Suit No. 1135 of 2007 thereby praying for the following relief: "a) Declaration that the decisions were taken by the alleged committee in the impugned meeting held on 11.3.2007 and the formation of the Committee is not made according to the Memorandum of Constitution and as such, the said Committee has not right to represent and to deal with the same and the said Committee is declared to be null and void. b) Declaration that the notice dated 10.02.2007 issued by the Defendant No. 4 convening the General Meeting held on 11.03.2007 of the Socio-Economic Research Institute is invalid, bad in law and is also liable to be cancelled/set aside. connection with the withdrawn of money of Rs.50,000/-from the United Commercial Bank, Corwallis Street Branch from the date of their illegal appointment in the institute till disposal of the suit and the said amount is to be deposited forthwith. d) Restraining the defendants 1 to 6 from representing the institute and also to act on the basis of the purported meeting held on 11.3.2007 and/or to do anything any further prejudicial interest of the plaintiffs. e) Temporary Injunction restraining the Defendants No. 1 to 6 their men and agents and all concerned from giving any effect and/or further effect on the basis of holding any alleged General Meeting/Special General Meeting held on 11.3.2007 on the basis of alleged notice dated 10.2.2007, issued by Sri Jahar Sen, Joint Secretary of the Institute. f) Ad-interim order of stay/Injunction in terms of prayer (c) and (d). g) Cost of the suit and incidental thereto. f) Ad-interim order of stay/Injunction in terms of prayer (c) and (d). g) Cost of the suit and incidental thereto. h) Any other relief or reliefs to which the Plaintiff/Petitioner is entitled to in law and in equity." (3) The case made out by the plaintiffs in the said suit may be summed up thus: a) The plaintiff No.1 was an Institute under the name of Socio Economic Research Institute and was registered under West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. According to the bye-laws, there are President, Executive Members. The said Institute is also represented by the Secretary in terms of the regulation. b) The defendant No.1 is a member and he claimed as self-styled President by virtue of the decision taken in the concocted General Meeting of the Institute. The defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 5 are the members of the Institute. The defendant No.2 is the former Vice-President and the defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the former Joint Secretaries of the Institute. The defendant Nos.3 and 6 are the members of the Institute and claimed as Secretary and Treasurer of the said Institute. c) As per Regulation of the said Institute, there is an Executive Committee consisted of about 15 members to administer the business and day-to-day function of the Institute. According to Clause 7 of the Regulation, the supreme authority of the Institute vests in the General Body of the members and the General Meeting of the Institute shall have the final controlling authority over the affairs of the Institute. A general meeting shall be convened at the instance of the Executive Committee by the Secretary or by any of the office bearers with clear 30 days notice and according to Clause 9, through requisition meeting at the requisition of at least 25 members of the Institute, the Secretary should call a General Meeting for which 15 clear days notice should be given. The requisitionists should indicate in the requisition the matter for which such notice had meeting. Twenty-five members shall form a quorum for the requisitioned meeting. d) On receipt of requisition from at least twenty-five members of the Institute, the Secretary should call a General Meeting for consideration of the specific matter stated in the requisition and no other matter should be discussed. Twenty-five members shall form a quorum for the requisitioned meeting. d) On receipt of requisition from at least twenty-five members of the Institute, the Secretary should call a General Meeting for consideration of the specific matter stated in the requisition and no other matter should be discussed. e) The Secretary of the Institute issued a notice dated 7th September, 2006 through the requisition of 27 members of the Institute on 7th August, 2006. Prior to that the Annual General Meeting of the Institute was held on 24th December, 2005. As per resolution in Annual General Meeting held on 24th December, 2005, the Secretary of the Institute had been solely empowered to call the Executive Committee Meeting and there was no other Executive Member empowered to call for the Meeting of the Executive Committe, if any. f) On 7th August, 2006, the Secretary of the Institute issued the notice for holding a General Meeting on 24th September, 2006 through the requisitioned meeting under Clause 9 of the Regulation by 27 members of the said Institute. g) However, the said meeting dated 24th September, 2006 was not held due to the reason that on 21st September, 2006, the temporary ad interim injunction was passed by the learned Judge-in-Charge of the Twelfth 20th October, 2006. The said suit was filed by Professor Chitta Brata Palit, the defendant No. 2 herein. h) On 20th October, 2006, none appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs in the said suit and as such, the learned Judge-in-Charge was pleased to show-cause as to why the injunction application should not be rejected. During the pendency of the said show-cause, on 28th November, 2006, one of the defendants being defendant No.5 issued a fresh notice dated 27th November, 2006 for convening a meeting of the Executive Committee on 4th December, 2006 under Regulation 7 of the said Institute. i) On 2nd December, 2006, a letter through the learned Advocate was issued to the said defendant being defendant No. 5 asking him not to hold the illegal meeting on 4th December, 2006 and the said copy was received by defendant No. 5 on 4th December, 2006. j) On the basis of the said illegal meeting of the Executive Committee held on 4th December, 2006, again one of the former Joint Secretaries, viz. j) On the basis of the said illegal meeting of the Executive Committee held on 4th December, 2006, again one of the former Joint Secretaries, viz. Sri Jahar Sen, the defendant No. 4 in this suit, issued notice dated 5th December, 2006 under Regulation 7 for holding a General Meeting on 7th January, 2007. The said notice was challenged by one Executive Member, Dr. Ranjit Chakraborty, by filing a suit being Title Suit No. 27 of 2007. On 3rd February, 2007, Title Suit No. 1315 of 2006 was dismissed for default found from supplementary affidavit to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by defendant No. 2, that Sri Jahar Sen, the defendant No. 4, issued a notice dated 10th February, 2007 for holding General Meeting on 11th March, 2007 with one of the agendas recommending the removal of the Secretary and the Treasurer from their respective posts with effect from that date. On 11th March, 2007, an illegal Special General Meeting was held, but no general meeting was held. Even the notice dated 10th February, 2007 was not issued at the instance of Executive Committee. Moreover, General Meeting is different from Special General Meeting and in the said Special General Meeting the agenda of removal of the Secretary and the Treasurer along with selection of the President was considered. Hence the suit was filed challenging the said notice and the meeting. (4) In connection with the said suit, the plaintiffs came up with an application for temporary injunction thereby praying for restraining the defendant Nos.1 to 6, their men and agents from giving any effect to or further effect to the decision taken in the General Meeting on 11th March, 2007, on the basis of notice dated 10th February, 2007, issued by Jahar Sen, Ex-Joint Secretary. (5) The said application for injunction was opposed by the defendants by filing written objection thereby opposing the prayer of the plaintiffs and their of the assessment and, thus, the plaintiffs were not entitled to get any relief. (6) As indicated earlier the learned Trial Judge by order impugned herein has rejected the application for injunction. (7) Being dissatisfied, the plaintiffs have come up with the present first miscellaneous appeal. (6) As indicated earlier the learned Trial Judge by order impugned herein has rejected the application for injunction. (7) Being dissatisfied, the plaintiffs have come up with the present first miscellaneous appeal. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we find that prior to the election held on March 11, 2007 the last general election of the society was held on 24th December, 2005. Subsequently, two requisitions were made for holding meeting of the society but due to injunction order issued by the Court, such meeting could not be held. After such injunction order was vacated, a fresh notice for requisition was given on 10th February, 2007 and the meeting was consequently held on March 11, 2007. The learned Trial Judge, by a well-reasoned order pointed out that there was no violation of any of the rules of the Society in convening the meeting and such meeting was held after complying with the norms prescribed by the rules. Even more than the required number of members was present in that meeting. The learned Trial Judge further pointed out that the suit was filed long two months after the meeting was held and that there was no justification of staying the decision taken in such meeting. In other word, the learned Trial Judge failed to find any prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs and thereafter, by following application for temporary injunction, disposed of the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (8) We have also gone through the relevant rule providing requisition meeting of the Society and find that the requisition was made strictly in accordance with the rules and clear 30 days notice was also given. Mr. Mukherjee tried to convince us that the meeting was described as special general meeting but in fact there is no such provision for calling any special general meeting. We find that it was really a requisition meeting for holding the general meeting for the specified purposes mentioned in the agenda thereof and thus, the learned Trial Judge rightly held that the plaintiffs failed to prove a prima facie case. (9) Mr. We find that it was really a requisition meeting for holding the general meeting for the specified purposes mentioned in the agenda thereof and thus, the learned Trial Judge rightly held that the plaintiffs failed to prove a prima facie case. (9) Mr. Mukherjee, as a last resort, tried to impress upon us that even no election has been held in the Society for a long time and as such, we should pass a direction for holding the election of the Society under the supervision of this Court. Since we are called upon to decide the legality of the order refusing to grant injunction in this first miscellaneous appeal, there is no scope of passing such direction within the limited scope of this appeal for resolving a subsequent dispute which is not even the subject matter of the suit out of which the present appeal arises. We, therefore, find no substance in such contention of Mr. Mukherjee.