As per case facts, internal management disputes arose within the AIADMK political party regarding a shift from joint Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator leadership to single leadership after the General Secretary's ... demise. These disputes led to civil suits and requests for interim injunctions to halt General Council meetings, which were challenged for being unauthorized and lacking proper notice. A Single Judge initially denied injunctions, then later granted 'status quo ante', only for it to be set aside by a Division Bench. The appeals challenged the Division Bench's ruling, arguing against the legality of the General Council meeting and its resolutions. The question arose regarding the grant of temporary injunctions in these civil suits, specifically concerning the validity of convening the party's General Council meeting by an allegedly unauthorized person and without sufficient notice, amidst a functional deadlock in the joint leadership. Finally, the Supreme Court affirmed the Division Bench's order, dismissing the appeals. It held that the Single Judge's reasoning on 'prima facie' case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury was flawed. The Court emphasized that in a functional deadlock, actions by requisitioning members and the Presidium Chairman to convene a meeting are not necessarily unauthorized, especially given the General Council's apex role. The Court stated that judicial intervention in internal party affairs should be cautious and not perpetuate deadlocks, and that mere technical flaws should not be the sole basis for interim relief.