Judgment :- S.S. SUBRAMANI, J. ( 1 ) -THIS revision is filed by a third party to a suit, who feels aggrieved by a decree of the lower court. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts which compelled the petitioner to come up to this court under article 227 of the Constitution of India, may be summarised thus : petitioner is an Association formed for the welfare of the residents of Todhunter nagar, Chennai, and the same was registered under the Societies Registration Act. As per the Byelaws of the Society, election is to be held every year for which nomination is to be called for, and after appointing Election Officers, and if election is necessitated, the voting will be by secret ballot. Third respondent in this revision is the elected Secretary of the association, and it is said that the election was not being 9onducted for years together and consequently disputes arose between the members of the Association. In order to settle the disputes, taking into consideration the welfare of the Association, a general body meeting was held on 27. 1. 1996, to elect the office-bearers as per Byelaws. ( 3 ) A general body meeting was held on 27. 1. 1996 only to consider the conditions for the election and also to take out other affairs for holding the election. But in that meeting, a set of people declared themselves as office bearers of the Association. One Premanandha perumal declared himself as the Secretary and one Chellappan as President. 15 others also got themselves declared as Committee Members. The third respondent herein raised a dispute regarding the validity of the first declaration. It so happened that another set of people, at the instance of the third respondent, also got themselves declared elected, and consequently there were rival claims. ( 4 ) IN view of the rival claims by both groups, there was police complaint. At the instance of the Assistant Commissioner of police, a meeting took place for effecting a compromise. An agreement was written and signed by all persons, except the self-proclaimed President Chellappan. As per the said decision, it was decided to hold a general body meeting on 31. 7. 1996, to resolve the disputes, and to hold an election thereafter. At the instance of the Assistant Commissioner of police, a meeting took place for effecting a compromise. An agreement was written and signed by all persons, except the self-proclaimed President Chellappan. As per the said decision, it was decided to hold a general body meeting on 31. 7. 1996, to resolve the disputes, and to hold an election thereafter. At that time, the self-proclaimed President Chellappan filed O. S. 11203 of 1996, on the file of VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, madras, for the following reliefs:" (A) Declaring that the notification for general body meeting of Todhunter nagar Residents Association called for by the first and second defendants as joint organisers, dated 7. 7. 1996, issued on 14. 7. 1996, proposed to be held on 29. 7. 1996 is null and void and in not binding on the duly elected office-bearers inclusive of the President during the election held on 27. 1. 1996 who is the President and office bearers in the eye of law. (b) for consequential permanent injunction restraining the first and second defendants, their agents, servants or anybody claiming through or under them from In any manner conducting the election of office bearers following the announcement dated 7. 7. 1996 (issued on 14. 7. 1996)or interfering in any manner into the smooth and peaceful running of the todhunter Nagar Residents Association by the plaintiff; and (c) for costs of the suit, xxx xxx" ( 5 ) AN injunction application was also moved. But injunction order was not granted by Court. In the meanwhile, as per the compromise, a general body meeting was held at the instance of Premanandha Perumal and loganathan, who are respondents 2 and 3 herein. An election was also held on 25. 8. 1996,. and Permanandha Perumal was elected as general Secretary and one M. Arumuga perumal was elected as President. Thereafter, it seems, disputes arose between the duly elected President and the General Secretary. Even though on the basis of the election held on 25. 8. 1996, the functions of the Society were going on, the suit was also pending. In view of the dispute between the newly elected president and Secretary, the Secretary submitted his resignation and ceased to hold the office with effect from 2. 2,1997. Even though on the basis of the election held on 25. 8. 1996, the functions of the Society were going on, the suit was also pending. In view of the dispute between the newly elected president and Secretary, the Secretary submitted his resignation and ceased to hold the office with effect from 2. 2,1997. Immediately thereafter, the Secretary who is also a defendant in the suit, filed a Memo before the lower court, stating that he has no objection for the suit being decreed. The lower court advanced the posting of the case, acting on the memo or endorsement, and decreed the suit as prayed for. Plaintiff also endorsed that no relief is sought against the third defendant, who is the registrar of Co-operative Societies. A decree was passed as follows:" (I) that it be and is hereby declared that the notification for General body Meeting of Todhunter Nagar residents Association called for by the first and second defendants as joint organisers dated 7. 7. 1996 issued on 14. 7. 1996, proposed to be held on 29. 7. 1996 is null and void and is not binding on the duly elected President during the election held on 27. 1. 1996 who is the President in the eye of law; (ii) that the first and second defendants, their agents, servants or anybody claiming through or under them be are hereby restrained by permanent injunction from in any manner convening general body meeting and conducting election of office-bearers following the announcement dated 7. 7. 1996 (issued on 14. 7. 1996) or interfering in any manner into the smooth and peaceful running of the todhunter Nagar Residents Association by the plaintiff; (iii) that the suit against the third defendant be and is hereby dismissed as not pressed; (iv) that there be no costs in this suit. " ( 6 ) ON the basis of this decree, a communication was sent to the registrar of Cooperative Societies, who directed the Association to handover the records It was at that time, the Association came to know about the ex-parte decree. The same is sought to be set aside in revision under Article 227 of the constitution of India. ( 7 ) WHEN the matter came up for admission, I directed the petitioner to file a petition seeking permission to prefer the revision since he is not a party to the suit. The same is sought to be set aside in revision under Article 227 of the constitution of India. ( 7 ) WHEN the matter came up for admission, I directed the petitioner to file a petition seeking permission to prefer the revision since he is not a party to the suit. Accordingly he filed C. M. P. 12857 of 1997 and permission was also granted. In revision, I ordered notice of motion. I also granted an interim order suspending the operation of the judgment and decree of the lower court till 22. 10. 1997. Notice was also sent to all the respondents. Only the first respondent entered appearance through counsel. The names of the respondents were also printed in the cause-list. ( 8 ) I heard learned counsel appearing on both sides, in detail. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that this is a clear case of collusion between plaintiff and the erstwhile general Secretary. It if also contended that the Association by itself is not made a party to the suit. But, by the decree, it is the association that is affected. It is also said that at the time when the Secretary made an endorsement that he has no objection for the court decreeing the suit, he did not make an endorsement since he has already resigned the post, and he did not have any right to represent the Association. After having resigned voluntarily, it is only to wreak wengeance on the President or the Association, he has joined hands with the plaintiff in submitting himself to a decree. It Is also contended that when the suit was filed by the plaintiff, the very same General Secretary had opposed the case of the plaintiff, and after, having resigned, he has joint hands with the plaintiff to defeat the rights of the Association. This, according to him, is a collusive decree. It is further contended that the decree is far beyond the scope of the suit. A permanent injunction has been granted from holding any election, and the plaintiff therein is declared as permanent President of the Association, which goes against the Bylaws by which the entire Association is governed. This, according to him, is a collusive decree. It is further contended that the decree is far beyond the scope of the suit. A permanent injunction has been granted from holding any election, and the plaintiff therein is declared as permanent President of the Association, which goes against the Bylaws by which the entire Association is governed. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the above reasons, the impugned Judgment and decree are liable to be set aside by this court, invoking its jurisdiction under Article 227 on the Constitution ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel also brought to my notice that when a decree is obtained collusively, and if third parties rights are affected, it is a case where this courts power under article 227 of the constitution is to be exercised. Learned counsel for petitioner relied on the decision reported in Karuppiah and Ors. v. Mariappan and Anr. t also, for the purpose of showing that when an ex-parte decree is granted far beyond the scope of the suit, it is liable to be interfered with. It is also contended that when the act of the erstwhile General secretary is an abuse of process of court, or the result of fraud or collusion, in view of the decision reported in Karuppiah and Ors. v. Marlappan and Anr. (supra), the same is liable to be interfered with ( 10 ) AFTER having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I think that this is a fit case where the powers under Article 227 of the constitution have to be exercised. ( 11 ) I also find that the court owes a duty to consider whether a decree could be granted merely on the basis of endorsement. Even if it was an ex-parte decree, there is a further duty cast on the lower court, to see whether anything survives in the suit, or what is the decree that is to be granted. In this case, i find that the lower appellate court has acted beyond the scope of the suit by granting a relief which should not have been granted. ( 12 ) WHAT is the consequence of the decree? It refrains the convening of any general body meeting or conducting election of office bearers. It further declares that the plaintiff is the President in the eye of law. Even assuming that an election was held on 27 1. ( 12 ) WHAT is the consequence of the decree? It refrains the convening of any general body meeting or conducting election of office bearers. It further declares that the plaintiff is the President in the eye of law. Even assuming that an election was held on 27 1. 1996, as per Bylaws, the term of the office-bearers is only one year. The decree was passed on 30. 4. 1997. On that date, the office-bearers have ceased to be office-bearers, and the suit itself has now become infructuous. In fact, one of the documents filed alongwith the plaint is, the Bylaws of the association. While passing the decree, the court has to atleast consider the documents filed alongwith the plaint, which is also a part of the pleadings. The court failed to do so. ( 13 ) THE lower court failed to note that the Association is not made a party to the proceeding. A declaration is sought for by the plaintiff, declaring that the notification for general Body Meeting of the Association called for by the first/second defendants, who are two individuals, is null and void. The lower court also should have seen that the suit has not been properly instituted, without the President of the Association being arrayed. The declaration sought for by the plaintiff was only against the Association and not against two individuals. ( 14 ) THE conduct of the second respondent, i. e , first defendant in the suit, is really shocking. After having opposed the claim of the plaintiff in the suit, and after having got elected as General Secretary, on 25. 8. 1996, and after having worked as General Secretary for months together, and after having resigned from the post in February, 1997, what was his authority to submit to a judgment? It is purely collusive in nature. Neither the plaintiff, nor the first defendant is affected by the decision It has really affected the Association. A collusive decree is liable to be set aside. It is well-settled legal position that such collusive decrees could be set aside by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution. Such decrees, vitiated by collusion, can be challenged in any proceeding, in this case, 1 find that the collusion has been proved beyond doubt. ( 15 ) IN the result, 1 set aside the judgment and decree passed by the lower court. Such decrees, vitiated by collusion, can be challenged in any proceeding, in this case, 1 find that the collusion has been proved beyond doubt. ( 15 ) IN the result, 1 set aside the judgment and decree passed by the lower court. Even if the plaintiff had been elected on 27. 1. 1996, as on this date, he cannot obtain a declaration as prayed for. Therefore, 1 hold that as on this date, the suit has become infructuous and the same is liable to be dismissed. I further direct the first defendant in the suit to handover the documents that are in his possession to the petitioner herein within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case he fails to do so, I further direct that proceedings shall be initiated against him for disobedience of order of this court The petitioner herein shall obtain a steno copy of this order and send the same to the erstwhile Secretary pemanandha Perumal, residing at No. E. 145, todhunter Nagar, Madras-600 015 by registered post acknowledgement due, in compliance of the above direction. ( 16 ) THE Civil Revision Petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs. C. M. P. 12858 of 1997 for interim order is closed. Revision Petition allowed.