JUDGMENT 1. -These revision petitions have been filed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Udaipur dated March 5, 1994 by which he has dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and also cross-objections of the defendants No. 1 and 2 and confirmed the order of the learned Munsif, Udaipur City (North) directing the defendants to convene the meeting of the General Council of the Vidhya Bhawan Society (In Short, Society) (defendant No. 1) and refused to restrain it and its office bearers (defendants) from enrolling new members and to permit (sic) them from participating in the elections to the vacant posts of Executive Committee of the said Society. 2. The facts of the case giving rise to these revision petitions may be summarised thus. The plaintiff Life members of the Society and the defendants No. 2 to 5 are its office bearers. On December 18, 1993, 65 members of the Society submitted a requisition for convening the meeting of the General Council for electing five members of the Executive Committee of the Society whose term had expired. On January 30, 1994, a notification was issued by the president (defendant No. 2) of the Society in 'Rajasthan Patrika', Udaipur inviting applications for membership from eligible persons. On February 14, 1994, the plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction in the court of the Munsif, Udaipur City (North) along with an application for ex-parte ad interim injunction for restraining the defendants from enrolling new members till the new members of the Executive Committee are elected in the requisitioned meeting. The defendants No. 1 and 2 filed their reply, seriously opposing the application. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Munsif passed the order as said above. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal against this order and it was dismissed as said above. 3. Revision Petition No. 240/94 has been filed by the Society (defendant No. 1) and its President (defendant No. 2) for setting aside the order of the trial court by which it has directed them to convene the special meeting of the General Council to hold election of five members of the Executive Committee. 3. Revision Petition No. 240/94 has been filed by the Society (defendant No. 1) and its President (defendant No. 2) for setting aside the order of the trial court by which it has directed them to convene the special meeting of the General Council to hold election of five members of the Executive Committee. Revision Petition No. 346/94 has been filed by the plaintiffs for setting aside the order of the trial court refusing to restrain the defendants No. 1 and 2 from enrolling new members and restraining them (newly enrolled members) from participating in the said election to five vacant posts of Executive Committee. 4. In the revision petition No. 240/94 (filed by the Society and its President) following orders were passed by this court on March 22, 1994 and March 24, 1994 : Hon'ble Mr. R. Baba, J. "22.3.94 Mr. L.R. Mehta for the petitioners. Mr. D. Maheshwari, for respondents No. 1 & 2. Both the learned counsel for the parties are unable to state when last Annual General Meeting for transacting annual business was convenience and held by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner is directed to furnish information about the date on which the last Annual General Meeting of the General Council was held and the business that was transacted thereunder. Put up on 24.3.94 as prayed." Hon'ble Mr. R. Baba, J. "24.3.94 Mr. L.R. Mehta for the petitioners. Mr. D. Maheshwari for the respondents. Mr. Mehta submits that the President of the Society shall convene the General Meeting of the Council within a reasonable period. He has to make a definite statement on 29.3.94 when the President is to call the meeting and the agenda which he wants to place in the meeting. Put up on 29.3.94 as prayed.". In compliance with the above quoted orders, on April 8, 1994, Shri L.R. Mehta Advocate filed the affidavit of the President Shri Jagat Singh Mehta along with notice dated April 1, 1994 issued by the Society fixing May 29, 1994 for meeting of the General Council for transacting the business mentioned therein including the election of 5 members of the Executive Committee. 5. After the said notice and affidavit were filed, it was observed by the court that the revision (No. 240/94) filed by the defendants has become in fructuous. 5. After the said notice and affidavit were filed, it was observed by the court that the revision (No. 240/94) filed by the defendants has become in fructuous. Thereon, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that he has serious objections against the said notice fixing 29th May, 1994 for the meeting of the General Council. One of the prayers made by the plaintiffs in their application for temporary injunction was to direct the defendants to convene a meeting of the General Council for the election of the five vacant posts of the Executive Committee. The learned trial court granted this prayer and it was confirmed by the appellate court. Revision No. 240/94 was filed by the defendant No. 1 and 2 challenging this order. After the said notice, this issue does not survive and as such this revision petition No. 240/94 has become in fructuous. If the plaintiffs have any objection against the said notice dated April 1, 1994 issued by the Society, steps, as may be advised, may be taken by them before the trial court challenging it. 6. As regards Revision Petition No. 346/94, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the learned lower courts have acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of their jurisdiction in passing the impugned orders refusing to restrain the defendants from enrolling new members and not to restrain and newly em oiled members from participating in the election of five members of the Executive Committee. He counted that attempts are being made illegally by the President of the Society to some how make the Society as his "Personal Forum" by attempting to in roll and induct new members of his choice in the society and as may as 165 new life members are alleged to have been enrolled on March 22, 1994 to nullify the entire process of election. He further contended that the new members could not be enrolled after the process of election has started and even if new members have been enrolled they are not entitled to vote in the election to fill 5 vacant seats of Executive Committee. He also contended that there was a serious dispute about the resolution of the Executive Committee held on January 15, 1994 for enrolling new members and as a matter of fact no decision was taken in this meeting of the Executive Committee. He also contended that there was a serious dispute about the resolution of the Executive Committee held on January 15, 1994 for enrolling new members and as a matter of fact no decision was taken in this meeting of the Executive Committee. 7. In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for defendants No. 1 and 2 that it is clear from clause 10(1) of the Constitution of the Vidhya Bhawan Society that ordinary and worker members will not be entitled to participate in the meeting of the General Council if they have been enrolled as such within 12 months from the date of the meeting of the General council & there is no such bar for honorary members, life workers and life members as defined in clause 7 of the Constitution. He further contended that there is no specific provision in the Constitution about the date and period on or during which new members can be enrolled and as such they can be enrolled at any time or during any period. He also contended that the election process started only after the issuance of the notification No. 1-318NBS/94 dated April 1, 1994 and not prior to it and in any view of the matter life members already enrolled prior to April 1, 1994 cannot be debarred from taking part in the election of the 5 members of the Executive Committee particularly when they have not been impleaded in the suit. It has further been contended that meeting of the General Council cannot be called under Clause 10(4) of special requisition for any purpose enumerated in clause. It can only be called for any other specific purpose. It was also contended by the learned counsel that the plaintiffs have duly challenged the notification dated January 30,1994 published in 'Rajasthan Patrika' inviting applications for enrolment of new members and after its thorough and careful examination the learned lower courts refused to grant ad-interim injunction to restrain the defendants from enrolling new members and also to restrain the new enrolled members from participating in the said elections. He lastly contended that no jurisdictional error could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs in the orders of the lower courts. 8. There is no substance in the revision petition No. 346/94, filed by the plaintiffs. He lastly contended that no jurisdictional error could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs in the orders of the lower courts. 8. There is no substance in the revision petition No. 346/94, filed by the plaintiffs. Clause 10(1) of the Constitution of the Vidhya Bhawan Society, Udaipur runs as under : "(1) The General Council of the Society will consist of the members of the Society of the categories described in clause 7 with the additional condition that an ordinary member or worker member will be entitled to participate in meetings of the General Council only if he (or she) has been enrolled as a member at least twelve full months prior in the date of the meeting of the General Council and has paid all his/her subscription dues as a member at least one month before such a date." The above quoted provision of the Constitution of the Society debars ordinary members and worker members from participating in the meetings of the General Council if they have not completed 12 full months from the date of their enrolment to the date of the meeting of the General Council. There is no such prohibition for Honorary Members, Life Workers and Life Members. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs could not point out any provision in the Constitution of the Society fixing date or period during which new members may be enrolled. He could not also point out any provision in the Constitution prohibiting the enrolment of members at any time or during any period, particularly after the notice for holding election has been issued. Under these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned lower courts acted with material irregularity or illegality in the exercise of their jurisdiction while refusing to pass order restraining the defendants No. 1 and 2 from enrolling new members and also from restraining the newly enrolled members from participating in the election of the members of the executive committee. 9. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The impugned order by which the said relief has been refused is not going to occasion failure of justice nor irreparable injury within the meaning of Section 115, C.P.C. to the plaintiffs. 10. Accordingly, both the revision petitions are dismissed with costs.Both Revision Dismissed *******