mandatory order permitting the respondent- plaintiff to cast his vote in the election scheduled today. = the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to permit the voter to vote in an election is, prima facie, not tenable. – we are obliged to say that the Court below should not have passed an order of mandatory injunction while the election process was on.

CA 820/2018 @ SLP(C) 35288/2017

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. 820/2018

(arising out of SLP(C) No. 35288/2017)

SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. Appellants

VERSUS

NRIPENDRA NATH BAIN Respondent

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Heard Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel

alongwith Mr. Vikram Yadav, learned counsel for the

appellants and Mr. Nripendra Nath Bain, respondent-in-

person.

The present appeal by special leave calls in

question the legal propriety of the order dated 12.12.2017

by which the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Patiala House

Court, New Delhi in Title Suit No. C.S. 2603/2017 had

passed an order of injunction without ascribing any reason

to permit the respondent to cast his vote in the election

of the Supreme Court Bar Association. This Court on

13.12.2017 had passed the following order:-

�Heard Mr. Gaurav Bhatia, learned counsel for

the petitioners and Mr. Nripendra Nath Bain,

respondent-in-person.

Having heard learned counsel for the

petitioners and respondent-in-person and keeping in

view the urgency of the matter, we entertain this

petition and direct stay of the order dated

12.12.2017 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior

 

CA 820/2018 @ SLP(C) 35288/2017

2

Division) at Patiala House Court, New Delhi in

Title Suit No. C.S. 2603 of 2017 whereby it has

passed a mandatory order permitting the respondent-

plaintiff to cast his vote in the election

scheduled today.

We are passing this order as no reasons have

been ascribed and the jurisdiction of the Civil

Court to permit the voter to vote in an election

is, prima facie, not tenable.

Matter be listed in the third week of January,

2018.�

We have been apprised that the election is over.

In view of the aforesaid, the mandatory order passed by the

learned trial Judge has lost its force. That apart, we are

obliged to say that the Court below should not have passed

an order of mandatory injunction while the election process

was on. We may hasten to add, we have not expressed any

opinion with regard to the maintainability of the suit. It

is open to the respondent to raise the issue of

maintainability before the trial Court.

The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated

above. There shall be no order as to costs.

………………CJI.

[Dipak Misra]

………………..J.

[A.M. Khanwilkar]

………………..J.

[Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud]

New Delhi;

January 22, 2018.

 

CA 820/2018 @ SLP(C) 35288/2017

3

ITEM NO.10 COURT NO.1 SECTION XIV

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 35288/2017

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-12-2017

in CS No. 2603/2017 passed by the Ld. Court of Civil Judge (Senior

Division) at Patiala House Court, New Delhi)

SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. Petitioners

VERSUS

NRIPENDRA NATH BAIN Respondent

(RESPONDENT-IN-PERSON)

Date : 22-01-2018 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD

For Petitioners

Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Vikrant Yadav, Adv.

Mr. Avnish Pandey, AOR

For Respondent

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Let the preamble of the Record of Proceedings

dated 13.12.2017 be corrected.

The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated in

the signed order.

(Deepak Guglani) (H.S. Parasher)

Court Master Assistant Registrar

(Signed order is placed on the file)