Skip to content


Mahamed Meera and anr. Vs. P. Duraisami Naidu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1926Mad1147
AppellantMahamed Meera and anr.
RespondentP. Duraisami Naidu
Excerpt:
- .....i.a. no. 747 of 1924 arising out of o.s. no. 380 of 1924. the plaintiff in that suit is a voter in dindigul municipality, and be has sued in order to restrain the chairman of the municipality from holding an election for three councillors alleging that the notification by the governor in council under section 43 of the madras district municipalities act (5 of 1920) was not properly notified under section 328.2. assuming this allegation to be true it is impossible to see what harm an election could cause within the mischief of order 39, civil p.c. the plaintiff's apprehension that if an improper election is-held his vote will be frittered and wasted away is quite groundless. quite apart from the question whether the lower courts are not interfering entirely without jurisdiction, even if.....
Judgment:

Jackson, J.

1. Petitioner seeks to set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul confirming the injunction passed by the District Munsiff of Dindigul in I.A. No. 747 of 1924 arising out of O.S. No. 380 of 1924. The plaintiff in that suit is a voter in Dindigul Municipality, and be has sued in order to restrain the Chairman of the Municipality from holding an election for three councillors alleging that the notification by the Governor in Council under Section 43 of the Madras District Municipalities Act (5 of 1920) was not properly notified under Section 328.

2. Assuming this allegation to be true it is impossible to see what harm an election could cause within the mischief of Order 39, Civil P.C. The plaintiff's apprehension that if an improper election is-held his vote will be frittered and wasted away is quite groundless. Quite apart from the question whether the lower Courts are not interfering entirely without jurisdiction, even if they had jurisdiction, they would be gravely misconceiving their duties and responsibilities under Order 39; and I would observe generally that the anxiety evinced by local Courts to control elections is wholly regrettable. Democracy cannot be interpreted in terms of injunctions. The Chairman in obeying the Government Order does no horn, waste or damage and ought not to be restrained.

3. The petition is allowed and the injunction is vacated. Cots to petitioner. Counter-petitioner is ex parte.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //