Judgment :- (R. Banumathi, J.) 1. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in C.S.No.649 of 2003 and also the finding of the learned single Judge in the judgment dated 24.08.2009, State Bank of India has preferred this appeal. 2. The case of the plaintiff-Bank is that the plaintiff-Bank filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from conducting any dharna or demonstration within 100 metres radius of plaintiff-Bank premises. The plaintiff has filed suit alleging that the respondents/defendants have given a requisition to take action against one M.Balakrishnan, Deputy Manager of the plaintiff-Bank, who was also the General Secretary of State Bank of India Officers Association for allegedly possessing huge property disproportionate to his known sources of income. Alleging that the plaintiff-Bank has not taken steps, the defendants have issued Ex.P1 notice dated 01.08.1998 seeking permission to conduct dharna. The defendants also gave a request Ex.P2 dated 10.08.1998 to fix the date of discussion in respect of the same. They have also issued hand written notice in vernacular language - Ex.P3. At that stage, the plaintiff-Bank has filed a suit seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from holding dharna/demonstration in the office premises of the plaintiff at "Circle Top House", Door No.21, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 1 within a radius of 100 metres on 31.08.1998 or any other date. 3. The defendants filed written statement contending that they have issued notice dated 01.08.1998 for the proposed dharna since the plaintiff-Bank did not take any serious note of their repeated complaints to take action against the said Balakrishnan. According to the defendants, they only wanted peaceful demonstration and the plaintiff-Bank cannot prevent them from holding peaceful demonstration. 4. On the above pleadings, the learned single Judge has framed six issues. Before the learned single Judge, the plaintiff examined an officer of the bank as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P3. The defendants examined D.W.1 and marked Exs.D1 to D10. On Issue No.1, learned single Judge held that the issue raised by the defendants for conducting dharna is not related to service matter. 5. Before the learned single Judge, Issue No.2 was framed as under: "2. Whether the plaintiff did not object similar demonstration conducted by SBSU (State Bank Staff Union) and SBOA (State Bank Officers Association) and if so, whether there will be an estoppel against the plaintiff?" 6. 5. Before the learned single Judge, Issue No.2 was framed as under: "2. Whether the plaintiff did not object similar demonstration conducted by SBSU (State Bank Staff Union) and SBOA (State Bank Officers Association) and if so, whether there will be an estoppel against the plaintiff?" 6. On the above issue, the learned single Judge held that the plaintiff-Bank has not filed any suit against SBSU (State Bank Staff Union) and SBOA (State Bank Officers Association) restraining them from conducting such dharna or demonstration in the premises or in front of the premises of the plaintiff-Bank and the learned single Judge held that the plaintiff-Bank has treated the defendants/Unions in a discriminatory manner. 7. Learned single Judge ultimately dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that the said Balakrishnan against whom the allegation has been made that he possessed disproportionate assets has peacefully retired and the date of demonstration was also over on 31.08.1998 and that the cause of action ceased to exist and therefore, the suit has become infructuous. 8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-Bank Mr.P.Sukumar has submitted that when the learned single Judge has observed that the cause of action ceased to exist and that the suit has become infructuous, the learned single Judge ought not to have gone into the merits of the matter at length. Drawing our attention to the evidence of D.W.1, learned counsel would further contend that even in his evidence, D.W.1 has admitted that the demonstration cannot be conducted within a radius of 100 metres from the bank premises and while so, the learned single Judge erred in observing that the demonstrations are not to be conducted within a radius of 50 metres. Learned counsel would further contend that insofar as the demonstrations/dharna conducted by SBSU and SBOA, the same was organised in Trichy and that too, specifically in the year 2004 and 2006 and the learned single Judge ought not to have taken into consideration the subsequent events to hold that the plaintiff-Bank has treated the defendants with a step-motherly treatment. 9. Respondents though served have not entered appearance. Names of respondents were also printed in the cause list. 10. The main grievance of the defendants was non-taking of action on their complaint regarding the alleged disproportionate assets of the officer Balakrishnan. Admittedly, the said Balakrishnan has retired and the date of demonstration is also over on 31.08.1998. 9. Respondents though served have not entered appearance. Names of respondents were also printed in the cause list. 10. The main grievance of the defendants was non-taking of action on their complaint regarding the alleged disproportionate assets of the officer Balakrishnan. Admittedly, the said Balakrishnan has retired and the date of demonstration is also over on 31.08.1998. With the peaceful retirement of the said Balakrishnan, the cause of action ceased to exist and the suit itself has become infructuous. In our considered view, when the cause of action ceased to exist and the suit has become infructuous, the learned single Judge ought not to have gone into the merits of the matter. 11. On Issue No.2, learned single Judge held that the plaintiff-Bank has permitted the SBSU and SBOA to conduct dharna/demonstration and has not taken steps to restrain them from conducting such dharna or demonstration in the premises. Learned single Judge also proceeded to observe that the plaintiff-Bank permitted them to organise dharna/demonstration whereas the plaintiff-Bank has treated the defendants with step-motherly treatment. As submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the alleged demonstrations by SBSU and SBOA were on 02.08.2004, 04.08.2004, 17.03.2006, 18.03.2006 and 22.03.2006 which were all subsequent to the cause of action arisen in the suit. That apart, those demonstrations/dharna are alleged to have been held in Trichy. In our considered view, the learned single Judge was not right in referring to those demonstrations and saying that the plaintiff-Bank has treated the defendants with step-motherly treatment. Hence the finding of the learned single Judge on Issue No.2 is set aside. 12. Insofar as Issue No.3 "Whether the defendants transgressed their limits of exercising democratic right to peacefully demonstrate in the premises of the Bank as recognised in the case law reported in 1989 (4) SCC 710 ?", after referring to various judgments, the learned single Judge held as follows: "25. While considering the above circumstances, it is true that in various decisions of Delhi High Court and this Court have decided that trade union was having right to conduct dharna or demonstration, 50 metre radius away from the office, factory and employer's residence." 13. While considering the above circumstances, it is true that in various decisions of Delhi High Court and this Court have decided that trade union was having right to conduct dharna or demonstration, 50 metre radius away from the office, factory and employer's residence." 13. It is pertinent to note that in his evidence, D.W.1, who is the General Secretary of the defendants/Unions, himself has stated that as per the recitals in Exs.D6 and D7, demonstration cannot be conducted within a radius of 100 metres from the Bank premises. After holding that the suit itself has become infructuous, in our considered view, the learned single Judge ought not to have gone into the merits of the matter i.e. the distance within which the demonstrations are to be conducted. In our considered view, the observations of the learned single Judge in para 25 of the judgment, would not be an impediment in any future cause of action. The said finding would also not be an impediment for the plaintiff-Bank to seek any appropriate relief in future. 14. With the above observations and directions the appeal is disposed of. No costs.