Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 250 (JK)

J & K Olympic Association v. Vikram Handa

2020-06-19

SANJEEV KUMAR

body2020
JUDGMENT (ORAL) Cav No.1387/2010 Caveator appeared and heard. Caveat shall stand disposed of. CR No.45/2020 The petitioners invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court vested by virtue of Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside order dated 09.06.2020 passed by the learned District Judge, Jammu (hereinafter, ‘the appellate Court’) in appeal entitled J&K Olympic Association and others v. Dr. Vikram Handa. 2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge urged by Mr. M.K.Bhardwaj, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to take note of few facts relevant to the disposal of this petition. The respondent has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction seeking to restrain the petitioners herein from conducting the election of J&K Olympic Association scheduled to be held on 16.02.2020 at Amar Singh Club, Jammu in the Court of Sub-Judge, 13th Finance Commission (Special Mobile Magistrate), Jammu (hereinafter ‘the trial court’). The trial court vide its interim order dated 15.02.2020 restrained the petitioners from conducting the election of the members of the J&K Olympic Association, as prayed for by the respondent. The order was till next date of hearing and subject to objections from the petitioners. The petitioners instead of filing of written statement and objections and contesting the application for interim relief chose to file appeal before the appellate Court. The appellate Court declined to interfere with the interim order not on merits but on the ground that the order being interim and subject to objections, may not be required to be interfered with in the appellate jurisdiction. The reliance was placed by the appellate Court on the judgment of this Court in the case of K.K. Puri and others v. A.K.Puri and others, 1993 KLJ 643. The appeal was, thus, dismissed by the appellate Court vide its judgment dated 09.06.2020 and the trial Court was asked to expeditiously dispose of the interim application, preferably within one month from the date of receipt of the order. It is this order of the appellate Court as also the interim order passed by the trial Court, which is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 3. It is this order of the appellate Court as also the interim order passed by the trial Court, which is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the discretionary order passed by the appellate Court declining to interfere in appeal with the interim order of the trial Court is not amenable to challenge by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court vested by virtue of Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be exercised to interfere in discretionary orders of the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any perversity in the exercise of jurisdiction. 4. Admittedly, the order passed by the trial Court, which was subject matter of challenge in appeal before the appellate Court is interim and subject to objections from the other side. The petitioners are well within their right to file written statement and objections to the interim application and argue the matter on merits. The petitioners, therefore, cannot be permitted to circumvent the prescribed procedure and invoke the appellate jurisdiction of the appellate Court and the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that in view of the settled legal position, the suit is not maintainable at all. 5. Mr. Bhardwaj, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners while delineating on the grounds of challenge taken in this petition, vehemently urges that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of N. P. Punnuswami vs The Returning Officer AIR 1952 SC 64 , once the election process has been set in motion, the Court should stay its hands and not interfere with the process. It is urged that the aforesaid judgment was cited before the trial Court as also appellate Court but the same was not taken note of and the interim order of stay to the process of election was passed by the trial Court. He, therefore, submits that the respondent being a member of the association, who had participated in the election had no locus to file the suit. 6. On the other hand, Mr. He, therefore, submits that the respondent being a member of the association, who had participated in the election had no locus to file the suit. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the issue with regard to the maintainability of the suit, as is raised by the petitioners, is required to be addressed by the trial Court in the first instance and anything said by this Court on merits would adversely affect his suit pending adjudication before the trial Court. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondent. 7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this Court and the fact that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is discretionary order not suffering from any perversity is not amenable to be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. It is, thus, appropriate to relegate the parties to the trial Court, where they would be heard by the trial Court on merits and appropriate orders in the interim application passed with promptitude. Since the dispute pertains to the election of a sports body, as such, it is desirable that the matter is considered on priority and appropriate orders passed without unnecessary waste of time. 8. For the reasons given above, I concur with the view taken by the appellate Court that the interim order passed by the trial Court, which is subject to objections of the petitioners, need not be interfered with and the parties better relegated to the trial Court. 9. This petition is, accordingly, disposed of by providing as under:- i) That the suit in which the next date of hearing is stated to be 16th July, 2020 is preponed to 25th June, 2020. ii) The petitioners shall file written statement as also the objections to the interim application within four days with copy in advance to the learned counsel for the respondent. iii) The trial Court shall take up the matter for consideration on 25th June, 2020 and shall endeavor to dispose of the same within week’s time after conclusion of the arguments of the learned counsel in the application for interim stay.