2025:HHC:22200 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.250 of 2025 Reserved on: 01.07.2025 Decided on: 10.07.2025 Virender Singh Chauhan ...Petitioner Versus Ajay Kumar and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge By way of instant petition, the petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail order dated 26.04.2025 passed by learned Additional District Judge (I), Shimla in CMA No. 8/2025, whereby the order passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.4, Shimla dated 30.11.2024 in CMA No.3172/2024 in Civil Suit No.156/2024 has been set-aside and the application of the petitioner herein under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC has been ordered to be dismissed. 2. The petitioner herein, is the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 156/2024 pending on the files of learned Civil Judge, Court No.4, Shimla. 2 2025:HHC:22200 The parties, hereafter shall be referred to by the same status as they hold before learned trial Court. 3. The plaintiff has filed the suit on the premise that Himachal Pradesh Government Teachers Union (for short, “HGTU”) is an Association of the teachers working in Government Sector in the State and the said Association is governed by its Rules and Byelaws. It is claimed that ‘HGTU’ is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The plaintiff claimed that the election to the posts of office bearers of ‘HGTU’ were conducted in 2023 and plaintiff was its elected President. He alleged that the defendants were wrongly proclaiming in themselves the right to hold elections for the post of office bearers of ‘HGTU’ and they had wrongly issued a notification for holding the election on 26.11.2024. In this background, the suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction has been filed. 4. The defendants are contesting the suit. 5. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short. ‘Code’) seeking interim injunction during the pendency of the suit against the defendants. An order of interim injunction was sought to restrain the defendants from holding elections in terms of notification dated 26.11.2024. 6. Learned trial Court after hearing both the sides allowed the application for interim relief vide order dated 30.11.2023. The defendants 3 2025:HHC:22200 were restrained from holding the elections to the State Body of HGTU for the Session 2024-2027 on 01.12.2024 and on any subsequent dates during the pendency of the suit. The defendants were further restrained from using the Logo, Insignia, name and registration No. of the plaintiff’s Union i.e. ‘Himachal Government Teachers Union’. 7. The defendants assailed the order dated 30.11.2024 passed by learned trial Court by filing appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (r) of the Code. The appeal of the defendants has been allowed vide impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge (1), Shimla. Hence this petition. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 9. Learned trial Court allowed the application of the plaintiff for interim relief on being swayed by the report of some observer with respect to the election held to the State Body of HGTU in the year 2023. Learned trial Court prima-facie concluded that since the elections had already been held in the year 2023 and the term of the body being three years, the defendants could not hold fresh elections, that too, under the banner of HGTU. The balance of convenience and irreparable loss was also found in favour of the plaintiff. Learned trial court concluded that the matter was yet to be adjudicated upon and in case the restraint order was not passed, the parties would be led to multiplicity of litigation. 4 2025:HHC:22200 10. The learned Appellate Court has set-aside the order passed by learned trial Court primarily by concluding that firstly there was nothing on record to reveal the entity of HGTU because as per learned Appellate Court, an Association of Society not registered in accordance with law, cannot have a right to sue or be sued in its own name. Further, it has been found that the suit was not filed by the plaintiff in representative capacity. Finding such legal flows in the suit, learned Appellate Court did not find the existence of prima-facie case in favour of the plaintiff. 11. Before adverting to the merits of the controversy, it is necessary to be reminded of restrictive jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court while exercising above jurisdiction, will neither sit as a Court of appeal nor to set aside the errors of law much less the error of fact. Such jurisdiction lies only for correcting the palpable illegality or perversity in the orders of the Court/Tribunals. 12. Coming to the facts of the case, I do not find any material to interfere with the order of Appellate Court. The existence of prima facie case has its manifestation in the probability or chances of success in the claim laid in the suit. 13. Noticeably, the suit has been filed by an individual proclaiming himself to be the President of an Association of Teachers named as ‘HGTU’. The Association by itself has not come forward to file the suit. Learned Appellate Court is not wrong in saying that there was no material to suggest that HGTU was registered as a Society or 5 2025:HHC:22200 Association. In absence thereof, learned Appellate Court has rightly expressed doubt as to the maintainability of the suit. 14. Indisputably, the plaintiff has not filed the suit in representative capacity. Thus, the filing the suit of present nature by an individual, prima facie is highly questionable. That being so, the absence of existence of prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff has rightly been adjudged by the learned Appellate Court 15. The Court was informed that after passing of the impugned order by learned Appellate Court as also after filing of instant petition, the elections to HGTU have already been conducted. 16. In result, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed and disposed of accordingly, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. 10th July, 2025 (Satyen Vaidya) (GR) Judge