Appeal allowed due to lack of jurisdiction and absence of prima facie case.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the order dated 27th September 2002. The court determined that the City Civil Court lacked jurisdiction and there was no prima facie case for granting the interim order. The court emphasized that all observations made were tentative and would not impact the final decision in the suit or other pending interlocutory matters.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the appeal.
2. Jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Calcutta.
3. Existence of a prima facie case.
4. Interim order and its implications.
5. Application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC.
6. Impact of the status quo order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Appeal:
The respondent's counsel argued that the appeal was not maintainable on two grounds: the meeting had already occurred, rendering the issue moot, and the order allowing participation in the meeting was not appealable under Order 43. The court found these arguments unsubstantiated, holding that any order under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is appealable regardless of its form or impact.

2. Jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Calcutta:
The court examined whether the City Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It was found that the cause of action (receipt of information about the AGM) did not arise within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, as the meeting was held outside its jurisdiction. Furthermore, the City Civil Court lacks jurisdiction over matters related to the management of a corporation, as specified in the First Schedule of the City Civil Courts Act.

3. Existence of a Prima Facie Case:
The court emphasized that a prima facie case is determined based on the averments in the plaint and the application for injunction. It was noted that the City Civil Court did not have jurisdiction, thus no prima facie case existed. The court also highlighted that jurisdictional competence is crucial before granting any interim order.

4. Interim Order and its Implications:
The interim order allowed the plaintiff to participate in the AGM and EGM. The court found that this order was passed without giving the defendants an opportunity to file opposition, which is impermissible. The court also noted that the interim order should not have been granted as the City Civil Court lacked jurisdiction.

5. Application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC:
The plaintiff had filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A alleging breach of the interim order. The court refrained from making any observations on this application, as it was to be decided on its own merit.

6. Impact of the Status Quo Order:
The court observed that the status quo order passed by the District Judge was not considered while granting the interim order. This oversight was significant as the status quo order should have been factored into the decision-making process. The court emphasized that the interim order was passed without considering the existing status quo order, which was a crucial factor in determining the prima facie case.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the order dated 27th September 2002 was set aside. The court concluded that the City Civil Court lacked jurisdiction and that no prima facie case existed for granting the interim order. All observations made were tentative and would not influence the final decision in the suit or other pending interlocutory matters.

---