9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (4) TMI 985X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh the appellant as well as respondent no. 1 have ceased to be office bearers of the Union, the litigation initiated at a point of time when they were members of the Union still continues. 3. This appeal, filed by the defendant, is directed against the revisional order passed by the Calcutta High Court in C.O. No. 2264/99 in which the High Court declined to interfere with the order of temporary injunction passed on 17th August, 1999 by the Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 179/99 arising out of the Title Suit No. 105/98 on the file of the 6th Civil Judge (Senior Division), Alipore, South Calcutta. 4. The aforementioned suit was filed by the plaintiff, who is respondent no. 1 herein, seeking a decl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eding. The suit is still pending in the trial Court. 7. The main thrust of the submissions made by Shri V.A. Mohta, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, is that the High Court was in error in not taking into consideration certain subsequent events which have a material bearing on the issues involved in the case. Elucidating his contention, Shri Mohta submitted, that in the meantime, three elections have been held and different sets of office bearers, excluding the respondent No. 1, have been elected. The newly elected office bearers have been recognized by the management of the South Eastern Railway; Respondent No. 1 is neither an office bearer of the Union (General Secretary) nor a Member of the Union. In such circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the said election. He filed another suit C.S. No. 258/99, seeking injunction against the newly elected office bearers and sought an order of interim injunction. The High Court declined to pass such order. However, the Appellate Court by an order dated 16th September, 1999 granted interim injunction restraining the newly elected office bearers. The High Court, by the order dated 12.10.1999, allowed the revision petition filed by the appellant and passed a conditional order. However, the suit was withdrawn on 11th September, 2000. Yet another election was held in the year 2001 and the office bearers elected in that election have been recognized by the South Eastern Railway Administration. In these circumstances, Shri Mohta contended, that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pute in the case relates to election of office bearers of the South Eastern Railway Mens' Union. The dispute arose at a point of time when both the appellant and the respondent No. 1 were members of the said Union. Now both have ceased to be members of the Union. Further, successive elections have been held to elect office bearers and the office bearers so elected have been recognized by the management. In the circumstances, continuing this litigation will be like flogging the dead horse. Such litigation, irrespective of the result, will neither benefit the parties in the litigation nor will serve the interest of the Union. Accepting the contentions raised on behalf of respondent No. 1 that the successive elections held in the meantime ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
