Orissa High Court
Rajib Lochan Dash vs Adarsha Nagar Unnayan Parishad on 18 November, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No. 536 of 2024
An application under Article-227 of the Constitution of India.
---------------
Rajib Lochan Dash .... Petitioner
-Versus-
Adarsha Nagar Unnayan Parishad, .... Opp. Parties
Puri & Others
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
_______________________________________________________
For Petitioner : M/s. G.R. Mishra &
P.P. Dash, Advocates
For Opp. Parties : M/s. P. Mishra, A. Mishra &
S.S. Dash, Advocates
[For Nos. 2, 4 & 6]
M/s. N. Sarkar, P. Senapati,
S. Priyadarsini & M. Muduli
Advocates
[For O.P.No.1]
_______________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
18.11.2025
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
The Petitioner is the Plaintiff in C.S.No.128 of
2023, which is a suit filed by him for declaration,
mandatory and permanent injunction. In the present
application, he questions the correctness of order dated
21.03.2024 passed by the learned 1st Additional District
Judge, Puri in FAO No.50 of 2023 in confirming the order
dated 15.09.2023 passed by the learned Senior Civil
Judge, Puri in I.A. No. 64 of 2023 whereby, his application
for grant of temporary injunction against the defendants
was rejected
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as
per their respective status before the trial Court.
3. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the
Defendant No.1 is a society registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 comprising of residents of Adarsha
Nagar of Puri. The Plaintiff's father had purchased land in
said Adarsha Nagar in the year 1994 and constructed his
residential house thereon. He started residing in the
house with his family since the year 2005. He became a
member of the society in the same year by paying the
required fees and participated in various activities as a
permanent member. He died on 29.07.2020 whereupon
the Plaintiff, vide letter dated 22.09.2020 addressed to the
society intimated such fact and also became a member by
paying the annual fees for the years, 2020-21 and 2021-
22. The Plaintiff thereafter participated in various
developmental works, day to day activities and general
body meetings of the society sincerely. On 19.03.2022, an
annual general body meeting was convened for selection of
various office bearers of the society wherein, Defendant
Nos.2 to 6, acting with malafide intention took the
signatures of some members including the Plaintiff and
selected themselves as office bearers. The Plaintiff
objected to this but the same was to no avail. Being
selected thus, the Defendants took control over the bank
account and started withdrawing the society money
illegally. They also committed several illegalities and
irregularities. The Plaintiff demanded audit of the
accounts of the society by an auditor but the same was
not acceded to. Because of such stand taken by the
Plaintiff, the Defendants wanted to remove him from the
society by any means. On 04.01.2023, a general body
meeting of the society was held and though the Plaintiff
was present, Defendant Nos.2 to 6 objected to his
presence by giving out that he had been removed from the
membership of the society. Since the so called removal of
membership was without following the provisions of the
bye-laws and without giving any notice to the Plaintiff, he
served a legal notice on 10.01.2023 on the office bearers
asking them to recall the decision. The defendants
submitted reply containing false and frivolous allegations.
Hence, the Plaintiff was constrained to file the suit seeking
appropriate relief. Along with it, the Plaintiff filed an
application under Order-XXXIX Rule-1 and 2 of CPC being
I.A. No. 64 of 2023 seeking an order of temporary
injunction to restrain the Defendants from debarring him
from participating in the day to day activities/meetings/
general body meeting as a member. The Defendants filed
their objection (rejoinder) claiming that the Plaintiff is not
a valid member of the society at any point of time. His
father was also not a member of the society. The money
receipts relied upon by the Plaintiff showing payment of
annual fees were stated to be false and fabricated. The
general body meeting was held on 19.03.2022 wherein,
the present Defendants were selected as Defendant No.1's
office bearers by following the proper procedure.
4. The trial Court, after hearing both parties held
that as per Article-6 of the Constitution of the society, an
application for membership is subject to approval of the
executive committee but there was nothing on record to
show that the Plaintiff was admitted as member of the
society. Further, the Plaintiff was unable to prove that he
shall suffer irreparable loss if he is not admitted in the
society. Thus, balance of convenience also does not tilt in
his favour. The application for injunction was thus
dismissed vide order dated 15.09.2023.
5. The Plaintiff carried appeal to the District Court
being FAO No. 50 of 2023. The Appellate Court took note
of the two money receipts available on record to hold that
the same had not been properly explained by the
Defendants. It was thus held that the Plaintiff has a prima
facie case but it was also held that the other two
ingredients, namely, balance of convenience and
irreparable loss are lacking. On such findings, the appeal
was dismissed as per the impugned order.
6. Heard Mr. G.R Mishra, learned counsel for the
Plaintiff-Petitioner and Mr. N. Sarkar, learned counsel
appearing for the Defendant-Opposite Parties.
7. Mr. Mishra strenuously argues that once the
Court holds that there is proof of the Plaintiff having paid
annual fees of the society, it implies he was a valid
member of society. Once he is held to be a valid member
of the society even prima facie then, as per the bye-laws of
the society, he has a right of participating in all its
activities. The Defendants were not able to successfully
refute the Plaintiff's claim of being a member of the
society. Under such circumstances, debarring him from
participating in the activities of the society or attending
the general body meeting would amount to gross violation
of the bye-laws. This proves that the balance of
convenience leans in favour of the Plaintiff and that being
debarred to exercise his right under the bye-laws would
result in irreparable loss, which cannot be compensated
in terms of money.
8. Mr. Sarkar, on the other hand, argues that in
order to maintain the application for injunction, all the
three ingredients are required to be proved, the Plaintiff
has no proof that he was ever accepted as a valid member
of the society. As regards the money receipts relied upon
by him, it is argued that the same were paid towards
development of Maa Mangala Temple and not as
membership fees. According to Mr. Sarkar, none of the
three ingredients are found to exist for which the
application for injunction was rightly dismissed.
9. It is trite law that three ingredients are
necessary to be satisfied for passing an order of
injunction, namely, prima facie case, balance of
convenience and irreparable loss/injury. As regards prima
face case, the same being different from prima facie title,
the existence of same can be readily inferred, if the
applicant for injunction is able to show from the materials
on record that he at least has an arguable case. It is
enough if he can put forth a valid question, which the
Court would consider appropriate for being decided during
trial. Viewed in this context, the Plaintiff claims that his
father was a member of the society and upon his death,
he submitted an application for membership on
22.09.2020. A copy of such application is available on
record. However, there is nothing on record to show that
his application was approved by the executive committee
of the society. Nevertheless, two money receipts, one dated
23.10.2021 for Rs.1,000/- and the other dated
19.04.2022 for Rs. 600/- are available on record. Both the
receipts mention that the amounts were paid towards
annual fee/dues. The defendants have taken a plea that
the money was paid as contribution for Maa Mangala
Temple. This implies that the authenticity of the money
receipts is not in question by the defendants. As rightly
held by the Appellate Court, the receipts mention that the
amount was paid towards annual dues and that if the
Plaintiff was not a member then how could the annual
fees/dues be collected from him for two consecutive years.
This in the considered view of this Court, prima facie,
suggests that the Plaintiff is a member of the society.
Thus, it must be held that the first ingredient, i.e., prima
facie case, is satisfied.
10. As to balance of convenience, it is for the Court to
see if the comparative mischief likely to be caused by not
granting the order of injunction would be more to the
Plaintiff or the Defendants. It has already been held that
there are materials to prima facie show that the Plaintiff is
a member of the society. If such is the case then he has a
right to participate in the activities of the society including
the meetings of the general body. Clause-7 of the
Constitution of the society is reproduced below:-
"7. GENERAL BODY MEETING:-The General
Body of the Parishad shall be composed of all
ordinary members of the Parishad including
elected/selected Executive Board. The General
Body has the power to elect/select the member of
the Executive Board."
Thus, as an ordinary member he has right of
attending the general body meeting. Debarring him from
attending the meeting would obviously result in violating
his right under the constitution, This Court therefore,
holds that unless an order of injunction is passed, the
violation of Clause-7 of the Constitution of the society, in
so far as it relates to the Plaintiff, would be perpetuated.
Thus, the balance of convenience leans in favour of the
Plaintiff.
11. As regards irreparable loss, both the Courts
below appear to have proceeded on the notion that the
function of the society is to undertake developmental
works like road and sanitation, providing pure drinking
water, maintaining greenery, cleanliness, hygiene and
charitable works. The society is not a profit making or
government organization. Under such circumstances, it
was not understood by the Courts below as to how the
Plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury if he is not
permitted to attend the meetings and day to day activities.
The above reason is, on the face of it, erroneous, for the
reason that once the Court accepts that the Plaintiff is a
member of the society then the constitution/bye-laws of
the society comes into play, which confers certain rights
on all members. Irreparable loss is not to be viewed
always in the light of whether the same can be
compensated in terms of money or not. Here, infringement
of the rights conferred by the constitution/bye-laws on all
members including the Plaintiff is a serious issue, which if
allowed will perpetuate the illegality. It would tantamount
to a situation where the Plaintiff, despite being a member
is kept away from the activities of the society and also
from its general body meeting. Thus, depriving the
Plaintiff from the activities as well as the meetings of the
society till disposal of the suit would certainly cause
irreparable loss to the Plaintiff for not being able to act in
terms of the constitution/bye-laws of the society. This
Court therefore, finds that all three ingredients necessary
for passing an order of injunction are in existence. The
Courts below have approached the matter from an
erroneous perspective for which, the impugned orders
cannot be sustained in the eye of law and hence, warrant
interference.
12. For the foregoing reasons therefore, the CMP is
allowed. The impugned orders are hereby set aside. The
Defendants are restrained from debarring the Plaintiff
from participating in the day to day activities/meetings/
general body meeting of the Defendant No.1-society till
disposal of the suit.
...............................
Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU Judge
Orissa Court,
High Cuttack
Court, Cuttack
Date: 18-Nov-2025
The 18th18:37:48
2025/B.C. Tudu, Sr.Steno
