Judgment :- 1. The 1st petitioner claims to be the elected President of Velayuthapuram Saliar Mahajana Sabha. It is a registered Society. The 3rd respondent herein was the secretary of the School Committee under the management of the Sabha. The 4th respondent was the president of the Sabha. It is claimed that a resolution was passed, supported by the majority of the members of the general body expressing their no confidence on respondents 3 and 4 and another person by name Kalusalingam. The 1st petitioner is claimed to have been elected as the president in the place of the fourth respondent. When the approval of the 1st respondent herein was sought by the memo dated 11-4-1990 sent by the sabha, there was no response from the 1st respondent, with the result, as a writ petition filed by the 1st petitioner herein in his capacity as the president of the sabha (W.P. No. 6773 of 1990), orders were made on 19-6-1990 directing the District Educational Officer, Aruppukottai, to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 9-4-1990 on or before 31st August, 1990. 2. It is claimed that withthe knowledge of the above orders passed in W.P. No 6773 of 1990 but suppressing the orders made therein, respondents 3 and 4 herein filed O.S. 169 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsifs Court. Aruppukottai and in I.A 513 of 1990 obtained an ex parte order dated 6-7-1990 directing the status quo to be maintained. The I.A. was posted for hearing on 20-7-1990 and it is stated that it is adjourned further to 30-7,-1990. In the meanwhile, the petitioners herein who have styled themselves as president and members of the sabha have prayed for a writ of mandamus to forbear respondents 3 and 4 from interfering with the affairs of the Sabha since according to them, respondents 3 and 4 were removed from office on 1-4-1990. 3. When a Civil Court in I.A. 513 of 1990 in O.S. No. 169 of 1990 granted an order of status quo in an I.A. in a civil suit in favour of respondents 3 and 4, during the currency of that order, there should not be a contrary order passed in a writ petition, even though administratively the court of the district munsif may be subordinate to this Court and subject to the correctional jurisdiction of this Court. The proper course the petitioners should have adopted is to appear before the Court of District Munsif, Aruppukottai and place their contentions before that Court to get the orders made in I A. 513 of 1990 vacated. Instead of that, they cannot attempt to use the machinery of jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution to obtain an order in their favour. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.