Judgment :- Kanakaraj, J. The facts leading to the above two writ petitions and the civil miscellaneous appeal are as follows: 2. The parties are referred to with reference to their rank and status in O.S. No.417 of 1996. The first plaintiff therein is a Society registered under the Central Act 21 of 1860 and later under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The life members of the Nadar Mahajana Sangam are the members of the first plain-tiffSociety. There is a College called S.Vellaichamay Nadar College established by the Nadar Mahajana Sangam in the year 1965. The College offers Under Graduate, Post Graduate And Research Courses for both boys and girls and has a teaching strength of 90 members and non-teaching staff of about 2000 members. The administration of the College is under the control of the first plaintiff society. The society has to elect a Managing Board, comprising of the President, Vice President, Secretary, Correspondent and the Treasurer plus 40 members to constitute the Managing Board. It is stated that the annual income from all sources in respect of college itself runs to several crores. That, probably, is the reason for the parties vying with one another to become the members of the Managing Board and the consequent fight for membership. The period of office of the Managing Board is two years from the date of election. The defendants 1 to 4 were elected as the office bearers and their period of office came to an end on 33. 1996. Under the bye-laws of the Society, the General Body of the first plaintiff Society should be convened in December, 1995 for electing a new set of office bearers for the period from 4. 1996 to 33. 1998. There is a dispute between the parties regarding the date of convening of the General Body Meeting and the manner in which the General Body Meeting was convened. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants were delaying the election because they were not confident of being reelected. 3. A meeting of the General Body was convened to take place on 6. 1996 at 11 a.m. at the auditorium of the college. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants were delaying the election because they were not confident of being reelected. 3. A meeting of the General Body was convened to take place on 6. 1996 at 11 a.m. at the auditorium of the college. The case of the plaintiffs is that they had intended to contest the election and apprehending trouble from the defendants, they had asked the Registrar of Societies to depute and observer to be present at the General Body Meeting. It is the further case of the Plaintiffs that a Senior Member of the Managing Board by name, Mr.D. Sabapathy was requested to preside over the meeting. Most of the subjects including the amendment to extend the period of office from two to three years were deferred. However, it is the case of the plaintiffs that nominations were received for the new Board and there being no contest, they were declared to have been elected. Minutes have been recorded to that effect and intimation was sent to the Registrar of Societies. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that they had assumed office, but the defendants are interfering with their administration of the college. Therefore, the suit was filed to declare the plaintiffs as validly elected office bearers of the first plaintiff society and to direct the defendants to hand over all the records and furnish Accounts in relation to the management of the society for three years prior to the suit. I. A. No.292 of 1996 wes filed for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ administrati on and management of the college. The suit was filed on 16. 1996. On 7. 1996, the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurai passed orders in LA. No.292 of 1996, vesting the administration with the Principal of the college, under the control of the trial court and directing the Registrar to hold an enquiry, after giving opportunity to both parties regarding the validity of the meeting held on 6. 1996 with consequential directions to be based on the findings of the District Registrar. This order is the subject-matter of C.M.A. No.846 of 1996. 4. Writ Petition No.9771 of 1996 has been filed by the first and third defendants in O.S. No.417 of 1996 along with the first plaintiff Society for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the letter, dated 16. This order is the subject-matter of C.M.A. No.846 of 1996. 4. Writ Petition No.9771 of 1996 has been filed by the first and third defendants in O.S. No.417 of 1996 along with the first plaintiff Society for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the letter, dated 16. 1996 issued by the District Registrar. That letter is nothing but an acceptance of Form No.7, under the Act relating to the election of new office bearers on 6. 1996 and to refer the same with effect from 16. 1996. The main ground raised in the writ petition is that the District Registrar had not conducted the enquiry, while accepting Form No.7, in accordance with the judgment of this Court in K.Arivanandapandian and another v. Nadar Mahajana Sangam and three others, (1994) 2 L. W. 584. 5. Pursuant to the order of the Sub Court, Madurai in I.A. No.292 of 1996, dated 7. 1996, the District Registrar is said to have issued notices to both parties, examined witnesses and came to the conclusion that a meeting was in fact conducted on 6. 1996 and Form No.7, filed by the newly elected Secretary on 16. 1996, was true and genuine. The District Registrar also confirmed the election of the plaintiffs 2 to 6. This order was passed on 8. 1996. 6. W.P. No. 12007 of 1996 has been filed by the defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. No.417 of 1996 to quash the said order, dated 8. 1996. In this writ petition, the main ground raised is that the directions of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai in LA. No.292 of 1996 is itself illegal and therefore, consequently the order of the District Registrar, dated 8. 1996 is also illegal. The writ petition also raised other grounds relating to the corrections and validity of the order of the District Registrar, dated 8. 1996. 7. We have heard the arguments of learned Senior Counsel Mr.K. Alagiriswamy for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and the appellants in C.M.A. No.843 of 19% and the arguments of Mr.T.R. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/newly elected office bearers. The first and foremost argument of Mr.K. Alagiriswamy regarding the correctness of the order made in LA. 7. We have heard the arguments of learned Senior Counsel Mr.K. Alagiriswamy for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and the appellants in C.M.A. No.843 of 19% and the arguments of Mr.T.R. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/newly elected office bearers. The first and foremost argument of Mr.K. Alagiriswamy regarding the correctness of the order made in LA. No.292 of 1996 appeals to us and we agree with the learned Senior Counsel that the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurai had exceeded his jurisdiction in going beyond the scope of the LA. No.291 of 1996, while passing the order, dated 7. 1996. While the application is for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants in the suit from interfering with the administration and management by the plaintiffs (newly elected office bearers), it was the duty of the trial judge to try the suit and decide as to whether the election was conducted properly on 6. 1996 and whether in fact, the plaintiffs had been elected in a duly conducted meeting. Without doing so, the learned Subordinate Judge has purported to delegate the said function to the District Registrar on the ground that his earlier order in the letter, dated 16. 1996, accepting Form No.VII was contrary to the decision of this Court in Arivanandapandian, K. and another v. Nadar Mahajan Sangam and 3 others, (1994)2 L. W. 584. In other words, the trial court has delegated its essential functions i. e., adjudicatory functions to the Deputy Registrar, by directing him to hold an enquiry on the genuineness of the meeting held on 6. 1996. In our firm opinion, it was the duty of the trial court to adju- dicate whether in fact a meeting was held on 6. 1996, and whether the plaintiffs had been duly elected as office bearers. If the plaintiffs had not approached the civil court and if a writ petition had been filed challenging the acceptance of Form No.7 and the said letter, dated 16. 1996, may be, the High Court could have passed such an order, directing the Deputy Registrar to hold an enquiry based on the judgment cited above. When once a suit is filed it is the duty of the civil court to adjudicate the question by analysing the evidence let in by both sides. This judicial function of the civil court cannot be delegated by the trial court to the District Registrar. When once a suit is filed it is the duty of the civil court to adjudicate the question by analysing the evidence let in by both sides. This judicial function of the civil court cannot be delegated by the trial court to the District Registrar. Therefore, we are clearly of the opinion that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge in LA. No.292 of 1996 is vitiated to the extent that he directed the District Registrar to hold an enquiry. In this connection, reference may be usefully made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Swetambar Sthanakwasi Jain Samiti v. Alleged Committee of Management, (1996)3 S.C.C. 11 . 8. However, the direction of the trial court during the interregnum the administration of the college through the Principal of the College under the control of the trial court is perfectly justified and in our opinion, the said arrangement subserves the interests of all parties. Once we come to the conclusion that the direction of the trial Judge, directing the District Registrar to hold an enquiry is vitiated it follows that the ultimate order of the District Registrar, dated 8. 1996 in pursuance of the said direction will also be vitiated and consequently it will be without jurisdiction, when the issue is seized by the civil court. We have therefore no hesitation in quashing the said order made in Na.Ka.No. 6551/E1/96, dated 8. 1996 and accordingly, it is quashed. Writ PetitionNo.12007 of 1996 is allowed. So far as Writ Petition No.9771 of 1996 is concerned, it relates to the earlier acceptance of Form No.7, to hold an enquiry. Therefore, the same cannot be given effect to without the trial Judge deciding the issue relating to the genuineness of the meeting held on 6. 1996. In this view of the matter the said letter No.Na.Ka.No. 5163/E1/96, dated 16. 1996 will abide by the decision in suit and it is of no consequence, as the management of the college is under the control of the Court during the pendency of the suit. The Writ Petition No.9771 of 1996 is disposed of accordingly. 9. So far as the C.M.A. No.843 of 1996 is concerned, the order of the trial court, dated 7. 1996, is set aside and the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai is directed to restore LA. The Writ Petition No.9771 of 1996 is disposed of accordingly. 9. So far as the C.M.A. No.843 of 1996 is concerned, the order of the trial court, dated 7. 1996, is set aside and the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai is directed to restore LA. No.292 of 1996 to file and conduct a proper enquiry within the four corners of the application for injunction in accordance with the letter and pass fresh orders on the basis of the evidence which can be adduced by both parties. However, the direction to temporarily vest the administration of the college to the Principal of the college is sustained. But it is made clear that the trial court will have complete control with the administration and management of the college. Therefore, the Principal of the College and the parties are permitted to seek directions from the trial court for any difficulty or problem from the trial court for any difficulty or problem arising out of the administration of the College. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.843 of 1996 is allowed to the above extent. However, there will be no order as to costs. The connected C.M.Ps. and W.M.Ps. are also disposed of.