Judgment :- P. JYOTHIMANI, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in an interlocutory application filed by the plaintiff in the suit (first respondent herein) for a direction against the second respondent/Election Officer to receive the second nomination form of the plaintiff (first respondent herein) and to include her candidature as one of the contestants for the post of Executive Committee Member in respect of the election to DRT/DRAT Bar Association that took place on 24.4.2012. 2. In the suit filed by the plaintiff (first respondent herein), the relief claimed is to declare the act of the first defendant in the suit (second respondent herein), namely the Election Officer, in not accepting the second nomination form of the plaintiff (first respondent herein) for her candidature for election to the post of Executive Committee Member of DRT/DRAT Bar Association, Chennai with regard to the election held on 24.4.2012 as null and void and for a direction against the Election Officer to receive the plaintiff's nomination. 3. The second respondent in the application, who was the then Secretary of DRT/DRAT Bar Association, has filed the present appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge. Under the impugned order, the learned Judge considering that the main grievance of the Election Officer is only with regard to certain allegations made against him in the affidavit filed by the plaintiff (first respondent herein) and that the counsel appearing for her was prepared to withdraw the allegations made against the Election Officer and to that effect an affidavit was also filed, issued direction to the Election Officer to receive the nomination form so that the plaintiff (first respondent herein) can have a chance of contesting in the election, by allowing her application. 4. After the impugned order came to be passed, it is not in dispute that the Election Officer by virtue of the order has received the nomination of the first respondent herein and this Court, in the order dated 23.4.2012 in M.P.No.1 of 2012, has directed the Election Officer to proceed with the election, however stating that in respect of the first respondent herein (plaintiff in the suit), the result shall not be declared until further orders of the Court. 5. 5. It is also not in dispute that in furtherance of the said order, the Election Officer has conducted the election and the results in respect of the posts, namely President, Secretary, Treasurer, Librarian and Four Executive Committee Members were declared, except in respect of the first respondent herein (plaintiff in the suit), as per the order of this Court. The result of the election, as stated in the affidavit filed by the Election Officer, is as follows: (I) PRESIDENT VOTES SECURED (1) G. DESINGU 246 (2) K.A. RAMAKRISHNAN 188 Mr. G. DESINGU Declared Elected as President (II) SECRETARY (1) S. MOUNASWAMYNATGHAN 200 (2) M.S.SHANMUGHASUNDARAM 231 Mr. M.S. SHANMUGHASUNDARAM declared elected as Secretary (III) TREASURER (1) V. GIRISHKUMAR 267 (2) K. PURUSHOTHAMAN 162 Mr. V. GIRISHKUMAR declared elected as Treasurer (IV) LIBRARIAN (1) R. BALACHANDAR 206 (2) R. SUGUMARAN 220 Mr. R. SUGUMARAN declared elected as Librarian EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Y.T. ARAVIND GOSH 198 A. SAM ARUL PRASATH 196 ANTONY LOURDU XAVIER SELVAM 190 P. MURUGAN 182 All the above declared elected as Executive Committee Members. It is also in the report that the first respondent herein (S. Anuradha Balaji) has polled 222 votes, which is the maximum number of votes obtained in the election for the post of Executive Committee Members. The appellant herein, who was arrayed as the second applicant and second defendant in the application and suit respectively and who also contested for the post of Secretary for the present term, was declared unsuccessful and Mr. M.S. Shanmughasundaram was declared elected as Secretary. 6. While the first respondent herein has filed an application to vacate the order of stay and also to declare herself to be elected since she has secured maximum votes in the election to the post of Executive Committee Member, the Secretary-elect has filed an application to strike down the name of the appellant, being the earlier Secretary, and to substitute his name in the appeal. 7.1. Mr. 7.1. Mr. G. Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that inasmuch as the appellant was the Secretary of the Association which has conducted the election and the present Secretary elected is joining hands with the first respondent, if his name is removed as appellant, nothing would survive in the suit, since the issue to be decided in the suit filed by the first respondent herein is vital to find out as to whether the Election Officer has conducted election in a fair and proper manner, especially when it has been the stand of the first respondent herein (plaintiff in the suit) that the Election Officer has not maintained the box properly, with the result the nomination paper alleged to have been filed by the first respondent herein has been lost, which fact came to be revealed when the box was opened in the presence of all the candidates and immediately the first respondent raised objection and filed another nomination. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, if the name of the appellant is removed and the present elected Secretary is made as the appellant herein and consequently as the second defendant in the suit, there would not be anything left to be decided in the suit. 7.2. He further contends that the order of the learned Judge is patently wrong. According to him, the learned Judge considering the fact that the plaintiff has withdrawn certain allegations against the Election Officer has permitted her to file another nomination when her nomination papers were not available when the box was opened, and that would only set a bad precedent, since it would mean that any person can simply make an allegation that his/her nomination was not found and present second nomination at the time of opening of the box and that will be making mockery of the election law. 7.3. It is his further submission that it is yet to be decided in the trial as to whether the plaintiff in the suit has actually put her nomination papers in the box or as to whether the nomination box put up by the Election Officer, as alleged by the plaintiff, is defective and before deciding all these vital issues, the direction given by the learned Judge under the impugned order permitting the plaintiff's second nomination to be received is totally opposed to all canons of law. 8.1. 8.1. On the other hand, Mr. S. Prabhakaran, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent (plaintiff) would submit that when once as per the direction of this Court election was conducted and on fact the Election Officer has stated clearly that the plaintiff has obtained the maximum number of votes among the Executive Committee members, in all fairness, especially she being the only woman member, her election and her right to work as Executive Committee Member should not be prevented on technicalities. 8.2. It is his contention that ultimately if in the suit the plaintiff succeeds and such direction pending suit is not given, thereby virtually preventing her from functioning in a democratic manner as one of the members of the Executive Committee, it will amount to taking away the right of the elected member, especially when the term of the office is two years. 9. The Election Officer has also filed an affidavit in detail stating the entire facts, including the number of votes obtained by various candidates and he has also stated that even if the allegations made against him are withdrawn, after the Election Officer opens the box and removes all nomination papers, he has no jurisdiction to receive any fresh nomination and he was compelled to receive the nomination of the plaintiff because of the order passed by the learned Judge and he has conducted the election in accordance with the direction given by this Court and he would abide by any direction given by this Court. 10. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, the counsel for the first respondent and the also the Election Officer and perused the order of the learned Judge. 11. It is true, as submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, that it is not as if the only issue to be decided in the suit is about the various allegations made against the Election Officer. 11. It is true, as submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, that it is not as if the only issue to be decided in the suit is about the various allegations made against the Election Officer. In the suit the issues like: (i) the plaintiff putting her nomination paper in the box, which papers were found missing by 7 o'clock when the Election Officer has opened the box; (ii) the plaintiff producing another nomination stating that her nomination paper has been somehow removed with guilty intention by some other persons; and (iii) the Election Officer has not taken proper care in placing the box in a proper manner, are all to be decided on appreciation of evidence, when the parties go to trial and before that the direction would amount to granting decree to the plaintiff. But at the same time, we have to also think about the plight of the plaintiff in the event of her succeeding in the suit and if the court takes fairly long period, the depriving of the plaintiff's right, who has admittedly obtained the maximum number of votes in the election for the post of Executive Committee Member, cannot be compensated. Therefore, we have to strike a balance in a democratic manner. 12. In view of the same, we do not propose to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Judge. However, we are of the view that inasmuch as the issue to be decided in the suit lies in a narrow compass, the suit must be given priority for the purpose of decision at an early date. 13. Insofar as it relates to the petition filed by the present Secretary-elect for the purpose of removing the name of the appellant, as correctly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, if such a plea is entertained at this stage, the plaintiff and the present Secretary-elect, who are stated to belong to the same group, can easily get a decree and there would not be anything left to be decided in the suit. In any event, it is not as if the parties have no right to make necessary application before the learned Judge while deciding about the suit. 14. In any event, it is not as if the parties have no right to make necessary application before the learned Judge while deciding about the suit. 14. Accordingly, the appeal and the applications are decided as follows: (i)the appeal stands dismissed confirming the order of the learned Judge with a further direction to the Election Officer to declare the result in respect of the first respondent herein and consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 are closed; (ii) Considering the urgency involved in the matter and since the issue relates to the election of office bearers to the DRT/DRAT Bar Association, we direct the Registry to place the papers before the Hon'ble Chief Justice, so as to direct the learned Single Judge to take up the suit, conduct trial and pass appropriate orders expeditiously in any event within three months; (iii) M.P.No.3 of 2012 to strike down the name of the appellant stands dismissed, however it will not prevent the parties to the suit to file appropriate application before the learned Single Judge; (iv)There will be no order as to costs.