JUDGMENT M. JAICHANDREN, J. 1. This Original Side Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 8.1.2013, rendered in O.A.No.869 of 2012, in C.S.No.689 of 2012. 2. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the affidavit filed in the Original Application, in O.A.No.869 of 2012, are as follows: 2.1. O.A.No.869 of 2012 had been filed by the applicants, who were the plaintiffs in the Civil Suit, in C.S.No.689 of 2012. The applicants in the said Original Application had prayed for an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and agents from holding themselves out as the duly elected office bearers of the first plaintiff Sangam. 2.2. The Civil Suit, in C.S.No.689 of 2012, had been filed praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein, the respondents in the Original Application, in O.A.No.869 of 2012, their servants and agents from holding themselves out as the duly elected office bearers of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Engineers’ Sangam (hereinafter referred to as the "Sangam") and for a decree of permanent injunction restraining them from obstructing and interfering with the functioning and the management of the said Sangam. 2.3. The first plaintiff/first applicant Sangam had been incorporated and registered, on 13.11.1979, as a Trade Union, under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, bearing Registration No.124/MDS. The first applicant is one of the principal unions comprised of employees, who had worked for the erstwhile Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board had been trifurcated into three private limited companies, namely, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board limited, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited and Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Limited. The first applicant Sangam has been duly recognized by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, as it represents a vast cross section of the diploma holders and the part time degree engineers in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. 2.4. The office bearers of the first applicant Sangam, which is the first respondent in the present Original Side Appeal, are to be elected, as per the bye-laws of the said Sangam. Accordingly, a meeting of the General Council of the first applicant Sangam had been held, at Namakkal, on 14.7.2012 and 15.7.2012. 96 General Council members, out of the 99 General Council members, had attended the meeting to elect the office bearers of the said Sangam, for the year 2012-2013. Accordingly, a meeting of the General Council of the first applicant Sangam had been held, at Namakkal, on 14.7.2012 and 15.7.2012. 96 General Council members, out of the 99 General Council members, had attended the meeting to elect the office bearers of the said Sangam, for the year 2012-2013. While so, the respondents in the Original Applications, who are the appellants in the present Original Side Appeal, had disrupted the meeting, by raising slogans and by using unparliamentary words against the existing office bearers. However, the election of the office bearers commenced with the nomination of Er. S.Dhanavelu, former Secretary, Trichy region, Er. A.Nallayanperumal, former General Secretary and Er. V.Chandrasekaran, former Secretary, KBF, as the election officers. 2.5. The election officers had taken charge and had announced the commencement of the election. At this juncture, the respondents, had, once again, attempted to interrupt the proceedings of the meeting. However, the election of the office bearers had been completed. The elected office bearers are shown in schedule I of the plaint filed in C.S.No.689 of 2012. The elected office bearers had taken charge, marking the end of the proceedings. 2.6. On 15.7.2012, the office bearers and the members of the first applicant Sangam had passed a resolution in the General Council, suspending the respondents from the primary membership of the Sangam. The details of the new office bearers had been duly recorded in the minutes book of the first applicant Sangam. The election of the office bearers of the Sangam had also been reported in the news papers. In fact, 79 members of the General Council had issued letters of support in favour of the elected office bearers of the first applicant Sangam. While so, the respondents had been misusing the letterhead of the first applicant Sangam and had been collecting the subscriptions, by issuing receipts and by passing themselves as the office bearers of the first applicant Sangam. 2.7. The respondents in the application, in O.A.No.869 of 2012, had also embezzled huge sums of money from various branch offices, resulting in serious financial mismanagement of the funds of the first applicant Sangam. 3. 2.7. The respondents in the application, in O.A.No.869 of 2012, had also embezzled huge sums of money from various branch offices, resulting in serious financial mismanagement of the funds of the first applicant Sangam. 3. In such circumstances, the applicants in O.A.No.869 of 2012, had filed the civil suit, in C.S.No.689 of 2012, before this Court, to prevent the respondents in the said application, who are the defendants in the suit, from holding themselves out as the duly elected office bearers of the first applicant Sangam, the first plaintiff in the suit, in C.S.No.689 of 2012. 4. The learned single Judge of this Court, by his order, dated 8.1.2013, had held that the documents placed on record, on behalf of the first applicant Sangam, prima facie, proves that the election of the office bearers of the said Sangam was held, on 14.7.2012. The names of the elected office bearers had also been placed on record. The claim of the first applicant Sangam that the election of the office bearers had been held, on 14.7.2012, had not been disputed by the respondents. However, the respondents had claimed that the said election of the office bearers of the first applicant Sangam had been held contrary to the bye-laws and therefore, it is illegal in the eye of law. 5. The learned single judge had also held that the names of the elected office bearers of the first applicant Sangam were on record. It was further held that the respondents had not filed any document containing the names of the elected office bearers, to substantiate their claims. 6. The learned single judge had also noted that it was the claim of the respondents that the election had been held, on 14.7.2012, by appointing one N. Sundararajan, as the election officer. However, no document had been placed on record in support of the said claim. 7. The learned single Judge had also noted that the respondents had not filed any document in support of their claim that the respondents had been declared as the office bearers of the first applicant Sangam, in the election held on 14.7.2012. Whereas, the averments made on behalf of the applicants/plaintiffs had been supported by the relevant documents. It had also been noted that the balance of convenience was in favour of the applicants. Whereas, the averments made on behalf of the applicants/plaintiffs had been supported by the relevant documents. It had also been noted that the balance of convenience was in favour of the applicants. Accordingly, the learned single Judge had passed the order, dated 8.1.2013, granting an order of injunction, as prayed for by the applicants, in O.A.No.869 of 2012. 8. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned single Judge, dated 8.1.2013, made in O.A.No.869 of 2012, the respondents in the said application had filed the present Original Side Appeal, before this Court. 9. Heard Mr. R.Thiagarajan, the learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr.V.Prakash, the learned senior counsel for the respondents. 10. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants had submitted that all the relevant records necessary for sustaining the claims of the appellants in the present Original Side Appeal had been served on the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. However, the learned single Judge had refused to take on record the said documents and to consider the same, while passing the impugned order, dated 8.1.2013. 11. The learned senior counsel had further submitted that the appellants had not been given an opportunity to substantiate their claims and to prove that they were the duly elected office bearers of the first respondent Sangam. 12. It had also been submitted that the claims made by the respondents are without any substance. The election of the office bearers of the first respondent sangam had not been conducted as per the bye-laws of the said sangam. 13. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants had further submitted that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board had invited the appellants to attend its meetings, acknowledging the election of the appellants as the office bearers of the first respondent Sangam. All the materials placed before this court, by the respondents herein, to substantiate their claims had been fabricated. There was no proper election conducted during the General Council meeting, held on 14.7.2012. 14. It had also been stated that the records filed before this Court, dated 15.12.2012, had not been considered by the learned single Judge, while passing the impugned order, dated 8.1.2013, in O.A.No.869 of 2012, in C.S.No.689 of 2012. There was no proper election conducted during the General Council meeting, held on 14.7.2012. 14. It had also been stated that the records filed before this Court, dated 15.12.2012, had not been considered by the learned single Judge, while passing the impugned order, dated 8.1.2013, in O.A.No.869 of 2012, in C.S.No.689 of 2012. Though sufficient documents were available before the learned single Judge to reject the relief, prayed for by the applicants, in O.A.No.869 of 2012, the learned single Judge had passed the order, dated 8.1.2013, relying on the fabricated documents filed on behalf of the respondents. Further, he had refused to accept the original documents which were available with the appellants. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the learned single Judge, dated 8.1.2013, ought to be set aside. 15. Per contra, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the resolutions, electing the office bearers of the first respondent Sangam had been passed, unanimously, to end the anti union activities of the appellants and their supporters. 16. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents had further submitted that the appellants had managed to procure the letterheads and the seals bearing the name of the first respondent Sangam. They were also using the receipt books of the first respondent Sangam, illegally, even though they had been suspended from the primary membership of the respondents, for a term of 3 years. 17. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents had further submitted that the appellants are continuing to indulge in anti-union activities and are also unauthorizedly and illegally claiming to be the office bearers of the first respondent Sangam. Such illegal and unauthorized conduct is deterimental to the functioning of the first respondent Sangam. The appellants have no authority in law to represent the first respondent Sangam, when they had not contested the election, held on 14.7.2012. 18. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents had further submitted that the appellants have done nothing to challenge the order of suspension, suspending them from the primary membership of the first respondent Sangam, in the manner known to law. Once, they had been suspended from the primary membership of the first respondent Sangam, for a period of 3 years, the appellants have no locus standi or authority in law to represent the first respondent Sangam. Once, they had been suspended from the primary membership of the first respondent Sangam, for a period of 3 years, the appellants have no locus standi or authority in law to represent the first respondent Sangam. The appellants are bound by the decisions taken by the members of the first respondent Sangam, at the General Council meeting held on 14.7.2012. 19. We have considered the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and had perused the materials available on record. 20. On a perusal of the records available, the applicants, in O.A.No.869 of 2012, had shown, prima facie, that an election of the office bearers of the first respondent Sangam had been held, on 14.7.2012, during the proceedings of the General Council meeting, which had been conducted, as per the bye-laws of the said Sangam. On the contrary, the appellants in the present Original Side Appeal had not filed the relevant documents to substantiate their claims. 21. It is not in dispute that the applicants in O.A.No.869 of 2012, had filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.24597 of 2012, wherein an order of interim injunction had been granted in their favour. 22. It is also noted that the learned single judge, while passing the impugned order, dated 8.1.2013, had considered the documents filed on behalf of the appellants, by way of a typed set of papers, dated 15.12.2012. However, the appellants had not produced the minutes book of the General Council meeting and the election of the office bearers, to substantiate their claims, before the passing of the impugned order, dated 8.1.2013. As such we are of the view that the balance of convenience is in favour of the respondents. Further, it would cause irreparable loss to the first respondent Sangam, if the office bearers alleged to have been elected in the meeting, held on 14.7.2012, are not allowed to function as the office bearers of the first respondent Sangam. 23. For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to accept the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants. As such, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 8.1.2013. 23. For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to accept the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants. As such, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 8.1.2013. However, we make it clear that it would be open to the appellants herein to raise all the grounds available to them before the Court concerned, at the time of the hearing of the civil suit, in C.S.No.689 of 2012. We also make it clear that it would also be open to the parties concerned to move appropriate applications, for the early hearing of the civil suit, in C.S.No.689 of 2012. 24. Accordingly, the original side appeal fails and the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2013 is closed.