JUDGMENT Sunder Mohan, J. 1. Challenging the order passed in O.A.No.23 of 2022 in C.S.No.12 of 2022 dated 02.03.2022, the Appellants have preferred the above Appeals. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above Appeals are as follows:- (a) the Appellant in O.S.A.No.114 of 2022 is an Association. The Appellants in O.S.A.No.119 of 2022 are the elected Office Bearers of the Association. The Appellant in O.S.A.No.114 of 2022 is referred to as Appellant in this order. The Appellant Association was established in the year 1939 with the object to encourage Film Industries in South India. In order to conduct the election for the Office Bearers of the Appellant’s Association, the Appellant sent a notice on 03.01.2022 intimating the Annual General Meeting scheduled to held on 06.02.2022. On the same day, the Appellant issued the circular to all the members of the Association stating that Annual Elections of Office Bearers and Committee members for the year 2022 – 2023 will be held on 06.02.2022 between 9 a.m – 3.30.p.m. The Circular also provided time line for the elections. (b) The Appellant sent a letter dated 11.01.2022 to the members of the Association stating that there will not be any election as the number of valid nominations received for the Posts did not exceed the number of posts mentioned in the Bye laws. (c) on 18.01.2022, the first respondent sent a notice calling upon the Appellants to reschedule the time for the conduct of the Annual General Meeting and to conduct the Elections by E-voting. (d) on 20.01.2022, the first Respondent filed a suit for a declaration that the circular dated 03.01.2022 issued by the Appellant and the consequential letter dated 11.01.2022 sent by the second Respondent as null and void and for consequential reliefs. (e) The first Respondent also filed O.A.No.23 of 2022 in C.S.No.12 of 2022 to restrain the Appellant and the second Respondent for conducting the Annual General Meeting of the Appellant’s Association on 06.02.2022. 3. The learned Single Judge allowed the Application for injunction filed by the first respondent. The learned Single Judge observed that the time limit of seven days fixed by the second Respondent for submitting the nominations was not sufficient due to the Lockdown and COVID restrictions during the relevant point of time. 3. The learned Single Judge allowed the Application for injunction filed by the first respondent. The learned Single Judge observed that the time limit of seven days fixed by the second Respondent for submitting the nominations was not sufficient due to the Lockdown and COVID restrictions during the relevant point of time. The learned Single Judge found that the members of the Appellant’s Association were residing all over the Southern States, namely, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala and most of them were Senior Citizens and it was not possible for them to file nominations within the time fixed by the Second Respondent. Hence, the learned Single Judge found that the first Respondent /Applicant had made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience was in his favour. They had also established that they would suffer irreparable loss if injunction is not granted. 4. Heard Mr.K.Harishankar, Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, learned senior counsel for the Appellants. Mr.B.Aravind Srivatsa, Mr.R.Sagadevan and Mr.K.Harishankar, learned counsels for the Respondents. 5. Mr.K.Harishankar, learned counsel for the Appellant in O.S.A.No.114 of 2022 submitted: (a) that the Appellant’s Association is functioning since 1930’s and in all elections ever since inception, only seven days time was given for filing nominations. In an earlier election conducted by Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.Hari Paranthaman, (Rtd), only seven days notice was given for filing nominations. The First Respondent cannot dispute the said fact. (b) The Appellant has not participated in the Elections and hence he cannot be said to be an aggrieved person. He cannot represent the members of the Association as the suit has not been filed in representative capacity. (c) No other member of the Association has challenged the circular fixing the time limit for nominations. (d) The first Respondent’s case that seven days notice was not sufficient in view of the lock down restrictions is an afterthought. No such averment was made in the notice issued by the first Respondent on 18.01.2022 to the Appellant. The averment was made for the first time in the plaint dated 20.01.2022. (e) At the relevant time, there were no serious restrictions of lock down and the Local Body Elections in Chennai was conducted. No such averment was made in the notice issued by the first Respondent on 18.01.2022 to the Appellant. The averment was made for the first time in the plaint dated 20.01.2022. (e) At the relevant time, there were no serious restrictions of lock down and the Local Body Elections in Chennai was conducted. (f) The learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the Application which in effect amounts to allowing the prayer in the suit .The learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered in the electoral process and the notices calling for Annual General Meeting by the Appellant. 6. The learned counsel for the first Respondent would contend that the Bye Laws of the Appellant’s Association do not contemplate seven days notice for giving nominations. The Appellant had acted in a malafide manner by fixing a time limit of seven days in order to prevent the prospective candidates from filing nomination. The last day for filing nominations was on 10.01.2022. At the relevant point of time, the Government had issued a Circular stating that 09.01.2022, being a Sunday was a lock down. Hence, the first Respondent was unable to file his nominations on the 10th January which was the last day. As there were no nominations, no election was actually conducted. The learned Counsel further submitted that the results of the elections were declared on 11.01.2022. The Annual General Meeting was initially called for on 06.02.2022 and later they changed it to 09.02.2022 citing COVID restrictions. Therefore, the Appellants were aware of the COVID restrictions and yet fixed the last day for filing nominations on 10-01-2022. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions raised by the learned Counsels on either side. 8. The settled position of law is that the Courts would not interfere with the election process once it has commenced, unless there is gross violation of the rights of the voters. In this Case, the Election process had not only commenced but completed as early as on 11.01.2022. The first Respondent had not impleaded the elected Office Bearers whose Election is sought to be challenged in the Suit. The elected Office Bearers aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge have filed O.S.A.No.119 of 2022 after obtaining leave from this Court to file the Appeal, though they were not parties to the proceedings before the learned Single Judge. The elected Office Bearers aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge have filed O.S.A.No.119 of 2022 after obtaining leave from this Court to file the Appeal, though they were not parties to the proceedings before the learned Single Judge. Thus, we find that the Appellants have obtained the order of interim Injunction without impleading the parties, who are likely to be affected by the said order. 9. Further, we find that it is an admitted position that only seven days time was granted for filing nominations in all the elections conducted earlier to elect the office bearers of the Appellant’s Association. We are hence unable to accept the submission of the first Respondent that seven days time limit for filing nominations for the elections for the period of 2022- 2023 was not sufficient and it was done in malafide manner in view of the COVID and the lock down restrictions during the relevant point of time. The Appellant has not established as to how the lockdown has affected his right to file nominations. Further, we find that the COVID restrictions /Lockdown at the relevant time were not severe enough to affect routine life. As rightly contended by the Appellants, even the Elections to the Local Body were conducted during relevant time. 10. That apart, in the notice dated 18.01.2022 he has not stated anything about his right to contest the election being violated because of the time limit fixed by the second Respondent. The first Respondent had stated that he had received the election schedule only on 05.01.2022 and there was only four days time for filing nominations. He had not stated that he intended to file the nominations for any of the post. On the other hand, he had stated that several members residing outside Chennai and outside Tamil Nadu were affected because of the time limit fixed by the Second Respondent. We may note that no other member of the Appellant’s Association has challenged the election process stating that they were not given sufficient notice. Therefore, we are of the view that the Appellant’s rights have not been violated in any manner. 11. That apart, we find that issue raised by the first Respondent are triable issues. Unless gross violation of right is established grant of injunction which would amount to allowing the prayer in the suit is not proper. Therefore, we are of the view that the Appellant’s rights have not been violated in any manner. 11. That apart, we find that issue raised by the first Respondent are triable issues. Unless gross violation of right is established grant of injunction which would amount to allowing the prayer in the suit is not proper. Such an order can be passed only in the rarest of rare circumstances. Therefore, the elected Office Bearers cannot be restrained from taking charge or prevent the Appellant from conducting the Annual General Meeting. 12. In these Circumstances, we are of the view that the Order of the learned Single Judge granting injunction is liable to set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The Original Side Appeals are Allowed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.