Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order of the learned District Judge No: 1, Hosur, made in I.A. No: 6881 of 2011 in O.S. No: 185 of 2011 dated 02.01.2012. 2. The matter concerns with the Trade Union Election. The first petitioner is the Hosur Ashok Leyland Unit-II Employees Union represented by its General Secretary and the second petitioner is the Vice President of the 1st petitioner association. The first respondent is the contestant who filed a suit praying to pass a decree and judgment to grant an injunction directing the defendant to stay the further proceedings of sworn in function proposed to be held on 31.08.2011 and repolling scheduled on 17.09.2011 till the disposal of the suit and directing the defendant to conduct recounting of the votes casted for the office of Vice President alone and report to this Hon'ble Court before declaring the result. The second respondent herein, an Election Officer, appointed for that purpose is also a defendant in the suit. 3. The 1st respondent is a third party and till date not a party to any of the proceedings pending before the trial Court. Before the trial Court, the 1st respondent herein filed an interlocutory application in I.A. No: 726 of 2011 praying to implead him as a party respondent in the suit in O.S. No: 185 of 2011. That application was taken up on file and the trial Court allowed that application by an order dated 16.09.2011. By virtue of the said order, he became a party to the proceedings. Subsequently, plaintiff filed I.A. No: 881 of 2011 praying to declare the re-polling conducted on 16.09.2011 as null and void as the respondent and the petitioner in the impleading petition did not adhere to the oral orders of the trial Court. This I.A. came to be allowed on 02.01.2012. Challenging the same, the defendants are before this Court in the present Civil Revision Petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that though the Trial Court has got jurisdiction to decide the matter before it, still it is duty bound to pass a speaking order. But in the present case, it has passed a cryptic order which is liable to be set aside on that sole ground. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that though the Trial Court has got jurisdiction to decide the matter before it, still it is duty bound to pass a speaking order. But in the present case, it has passed a cryptic order which is liable to be set aside on that sole ground. Counsel further submits that the impugned order came to be passed without even serving notice on these revision petitioners and hence, the same is per se illegal. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned order by contending that these revision petitioners had not filed their counter in the I.A. and were not present when the matter was called; they were set exparte and I.A. No: 881 of 2011 was allowed. Therefore, there is no error or illegality in the order impugned. 6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents made available on record. 7. In the background of the facts stated above, it has to be examined whether the Trial Court's order dated 02.01.2012 passed in I.A. No: 881 of 2011 is valid in law or not ? The main contention of the counsel appearing for the revision petitioners is that the 1st petitioner conducted re-polling on 16.09.2011 for the post of Vice President in which the 2nd petitioner namely Mr. Pradeep Kumar, S/o. Sivamani, was declared elected. Without serving notice on both the petitioners and without affording them an opportunity of hearing, by the order impugned, the trial Court declared the re-polling as null and void and such order cannot be sustained. This contention merits acceptance because from the cryptic order passed by the trial Court, it is clear that the revision petitioners have not been heard by the trial Court before passing the impugned order. The order of the trial Court reads as follows : "Petition filed under Section 151 of C.P.C. Counter not filed. Respondent called absent. Set exparte. Petition is allowed. No costs." In a matter of declaring the re-polling of an elected post of Vice President as null and void, the trial Court ought not to have passed an order without affording an opportunity to the person who was elected. By this act, the trial Court had done grave injustice to the party concerned. Set exparte. Petition is allowed. No costs." In a matter of declaring the re-polling of an elected post of Vice President as null and void, the trial Court ought not to have passed an order without affording an opportunity to the person who was elected. By this act, the trial Court had done grave injustice to the party concerned. Whether the prayer sought for in the interlocutory application can be granted pending the disposal of the suit or whether such an order would not render the suit infructuous are all matters to be contested by both the parties and then a decision should be arrived at by the trial Court. Therefore, the cryptic order passed by the trial Court simply stating that "the petition is one under Section 151 of C.P.C. Counter not filed. Respondent called absent. Set exparte. Petition is allowed. No costs." cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. The trial Court, is directed to proceed afresh after giving due notice to the parties concerned and then decide the issue in accordance with law. This Civil Revision petition is allowed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no orders as to the costs.