(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the A-Diary docket order dt. 25.06.2026 of the learned XII Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai insofar as it declined to grant ad-interim injunction and refused to direct maintenance of status quo and adjourned the case for filing counter.)

This special sitting of this Court is held today pursuant to the administrative directions issued by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court based on the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who is seeking emergent interim relief from this Court.

2. This Civil Revision Petition (CRP) has been filed challenging the impugned A-diary docket order dated 25.06.2026 passed by the XII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.2690 of 2026 on the file of XII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. The petitioner is a member of the first respondent association. The second respondent is the election commissioner and the third respondent is the Registrar of Societies. The petitioner has filed the aforesaid suit seeking for certain reliefs, which includes the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the first respondent association from conducting election for the election of its office bearers on 27.06.2026 and 28.06.2026.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the first respondent association is holding the election contrary to the bye-laws of the first respondent association and in violation of the Societies’ Registration Act. According to the petitioner, several posts which were not included in the bye-laws of the first respondent association have now been included in the election process. According to the petitioner, under the bye-laws of the first respondent association, there is no provision for electing a delegate for a particular region of the association, who will be ultimately allowed to cast a vote for electing the office bearers of the first respondent association.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to the bye-laws of the first respondent association as well as the election notification issued on 22.05.2026, and would submit that the proposed election to be conducted by the first respondent association is contrary to the bye-laws of the association and is contrary to the Societies’ Registration Act.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to an order passed by this Court in P.R.Venketarama Raja and others Vs. Naresh Sharma and others [2020 Supreme (Mad) 752] and would submit that as per the said decision, there is no restriction imposed on any court to grant an order of interim injunction as prayed for by the petitioner in the suit. According to him, the trial Court has erroneously not exercised its discretion properly by granting an order of interim injunction as prayed for by the petitioner, despite the petitioner having established before the trial Court that the proposed election to be conducted by the first respondent is contrary to its bye-laws and contrary to the provisions of the Societies’ Registration Act.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of this court to another order passed by this Court in V.Arulkumar and others Vs. Tamil Nadu Government Nurses’ Association [2015 (5) CTC 17], and would submit that in similar circumstances, the suit was entertained and this Court had directed the association not to declare the results till the disposal of the suit. Therefore, he would submit that a similar direction can be issued by this Court to the first respondent association not to declare the results till the suit or interlocutory application filed by the petitioner before the trial Court is disposed of.

8. On the other hand, Mr.R.Thirumoorthy, learned counsel, who has notice on behalf of the first respondent association, would submit that trial Court has refused to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner, and has ordered only notice granting time for the first respondent association to file the counter affidavit, this Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the first respondent on instructions submits that the contentions of the petitioner that the first respondent has violated its bye-laws as well as the Societies’ Registration Act are denied.

9. Mr.T.E.Thiruvengadam, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the second respondent.

DISCUSSION:-

10. Admittedly, only pursuant to an election notification issued by the first respondent association on 22.05.2026, the impugned election is scheduled to take place. The election date has been fixed under the election notification as 27.06.2026 and 28.06.2026. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner is eligible to cast his vote in the impugned election. The petitioner has also been declared as a delegate in respect of a specified region, and therefore, he is eligible to participate in the impugned election. The election notification was issued as early as on 22.05.2026. The suit was filed by the petitioner before the trial Court only on 22.06.2026. Though the petitioner has raised several grounds for challenging the impugned election, which includes the ground that he was not furnished with a copy of the bye-laws of the first respondent association, the question of interfering with the impugned election at this stage does not arise, that too when the election notification has already been issued and several nominations have already been received and the election process is in the final stage.

11. Insofar as the election law is concerned, it is settled by various decisions rendered by the Constitutional Courts, which includes the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that no court can grant an injunction or stay an election notification once the electoral process has been formally set in motion. This principle of election law would be to prevent any delays or disruptions to the democratic process. In the case on hand, the suit was filed by the petitioner before the court below, and in the said suit, an interlocutory application was also filed seeking for an order of interim injunction to restrain the first respondent association from holding the scheduled election. The trial Court did not grant an exparte order of injunction as prayed for by the petitioner, and has ordered notice to the respondents in the interlocutory application returnable by 01.07.2026.

12. The courts’ power to gran or not grant interim injunction is a discretionary relief. The trial Court chose it fit to issue notice to the respondents and did not grant exparte injunction as prayed for by the petitioner. The question of interfering with the discretion exercised by the trial Court through this CRP filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by this Court does not arise.

13. This Court is not going into the merits of the contentions of the petitioner as raised in this petition, in view of the fact that election has already been notified and the election process has already been commenced and several nominations have already been received and the election day also falls on 27.06.2026 and 28.06.2026, which is today and tomorrow. However, this Court will have to grant liberty to the petitioner to raise the very same grounds that have been raised through this CRP as well as in the suit, once the election of the office bearers of the first respondent association is completed, to challenge the election results by filing appropriate proceedings, which includes by filing a separate suit or through an interlocutory application seeking to amend the suit prayer in O.S.No.2690 of 2026, pending on the file of XII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

14. In P.R.Venketarama’s case (cited supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, an interim injunction was granted to restrain the respondent from interfering with the election process of Chess Federation, pending disposal of the suit. In the instant case, the relief sought for by the petitioner is to stall the election, which, according to the petitioner, is not conducted in accordance with law. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of the case in P.R.Venketarama’s case (cited supra) are different from the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

15. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon one another case in V.Arulkumar (cited supra), which is rendered by another learned Single Judge of this Court, and it was rendered as early as on 15.07.2015. As observed earlier, the law is now well settled by various decisions of the Constitutional Courts, which includes the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that once an election process has started by the issuance of election notification, the question of granting interim injunction to restrain the association from holding the election is not legally permitted. Further, in both the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to supra, the High Court was not dealing with a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, but, was dealing with interlocutory applications filed in a suit.

16. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is not entertaining this Civil Revision Petition. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of in the following manner:-

                          (a) This Court is not entertaining this Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, since the election has already been notified and the election process has started and the date of the election is also fixed for today (27.06.2026) and tomorrow (28.06.2026), and the trial Court had also issued notice to the respondents by exercising its discretion by not granting any exparte order of interim injunction as prayed for by the petitioner.

                          (b) This Court has not expressed its opinon on the merits of the respective contentions of the parties in this CRP.

                          (c) The trial Court shall dispose of the suit and other interlocutory applications uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order.

                          (d) The petitioner is granted liberty to challenge the election results pursuant to the election to be conducted by the first respondent association on 27.06.2026 and 28.06.2026 in the manner known to the petitioner under law, which includes by filing a separate suit or by filing an amendment application in the existing suit in O.S.No.2690 of 2026 on the file of XII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, seeking for amendment of the pleadings as well as the prayer in the suit.

                          (e) The petitioner is also permitted to raise the very same grounds that have been raised in this CRP, whenever the petitioner challenges the election results of the first respondent association pursuant to the election to be conducted on 27.06.2026 and 28.06.2026 or on any other adjourned date.

No Costs. CMP.No.15872 of 2026 is ordered. CMP.Nos.15873 and 15874 of 2026 are closed.