Judgment 1. This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 20.4.2000, passed by the District Judge, Gaya, in Misc. Appeal Nos. 43 of 1999 and 44 of 1999, dismissing the appeals against the order dated 10.9.1999, passed by the Subordinate Judge-Vl, Gaya, in Title Suit Nos. 8 of 1999 and 151 of 1999, by which he has granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff-opposite parties and restrained the defendant-petitioners from interfering with the day-to-day work of the Mirza Ghalib College, Gaya. 2. Firstly, the facts, which are not in dispute, are to be stated. Mirza Ghalib College, Gaya (hereinafter called as the College) was established in 1968 by the local Muslim community of Gaya with the aim to impart modern and scientific education to the students of minority community with a view to conserve their distinct language, culture and religion. In November, 1968, a decision was taken to constitute a Council, namely, Mirza Ghalib College Council (hereinafter to be referred to as the Council) to run its affairs. Donation fee of Rs. 500/- was provided for being a member of the Council. An Ad hoc Governing Body came into existence on 25.11.1969 and Bye-laws and Rules were framed by the Councillors and the same were registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 26.9.1980. 3. According to Rule 7(d) of the Byelaws, the Chairman of the Council is to be elected by the members of the Council for a period of four years, who under Rule 8 could administer and control the affairs of the Council. Rule 9 provides for constitution of a Governing Body for a period of four years and the same was comprised of seven members to be elected by the Council as detailed therein. The Governing Body shall have a President, Vice President, Secretary and a Joint Secretary, who will be the office bearers elected amongst the seven members of the Council as indicated above. In the year 1989, one Md. Sahabuddin was elected as Chairman of the Council and 7 persons were elected as members of the Governing Body. The President, Vice President, Secretary and Joint Secretary of the Governmert Body were also elected. Mr. Sahabuddin continued for four years. Again in 1993. he was elected as Chairman of the Council and other office bearers were also elected. 4. Sahabuddin was elected as Chairman of the Council and 7 persons were elected as members of the Governing Body. The President, Vice President, Secretary and Joint Secretary of the Governmert Body were also elected. Mr. Sahabuddin continued for four years. Again in 1993. he was elected as Chairman of the Council and other office bearers were also elected. 4. Now the dispute between the parties is that according to the plaintiffs, the dispute arose in 1998 when the two sets of persons started claiming themselves to be office-bearers of the said Council. The plaintiffs claim that a meeting of the Council was held on 15.11.1998 and plaintiff no. 2 Masood Manjar was elected as Chairman of the Council. On 24.11.1998, a meeting was held to elect the office bearers of the Governing Body and plaintiff no. 3 S.K.R. Shamsi was elected as President and plaintiff no. 4 S. Quaisar Sharfuddin was elected as Secretary of the aforesaid Governing Body. 5. The defendants claim that a meeting of the Councillors was held on 11.10.1998 and in that meeting defendant no. 1 S.Waris Imam was elected as Chairman of the Council and defendant no. 2 Md. Quasim (petitioner no. 1 in the Civil Revision) as President and defendant no. 3 S. Naqui Imam (petitioner no. 2 herein) as Secretary of the Governing Body. 6. As a result of the dispute arising out of claims made by the two sets of persons as office bearers of the Council and the Governing Body, the functioning of the College suffered. Even the salaries of the teachers were not paid. Dr. Shakeel Ahmad, who was defendant no. 4, according to the plaintiffs, was the Principal of the College, whereas, according to the defendants, he was suspended and in his place another person was made Principal of the College. 7. The College is a Deficit Grant Muslim Minority College and the salary of the teaching and non-teaching employees of the College are provided by the State Government from its Higher Education Department through cheque/demand draft through the Principal of the College. 8. The matter came to the notice of the State Government and the State Government in the Department of Higher Education Constituted a Three Man Committee to look into the rival claims of the two sets of persons claiming to be the real Governing Body of the College. 8. The matter came to the notice of the State Government and the State Government in the Department of Higher Education Constituted a Three Man Committee to look into the rival claims of the two sets of persons claiming to be the real Governing Body of the College. The Three Man Committee submitted a report dated 29.6.1999 holding that the constitution of the Governing Body in the meeting held on 15.11.1998 was doubtful and suspicious and made several recommendation including the recommendation that till the revised list of the Councillors is prepared and in the event the Governing Body is constituted, the first Governing Body, meaning thereby the Governing Body constituted in the meeting held on 11.10.1998, in which the defendants claimed to have been elected as officebearers, should discharge the function of the Governing Body. Before the report could be submitted by the aforesaid Committee, the teachers of the College filed a writ application before this court being C.W.J.C. No. 3175 of 1999 for payment of salary to the teaching and non- teaching staff of the College and an interlocutory petition was filed in the said writ application for a direction for payment of salary and the learned Single Judge having noticed that there was a serious dispute as to which was the real Governing Body of the College and who was the real Principal/Professor-in-charge of the College, ordered by order dated 29.4.1999 that till the rival claims of the parties were decided in the writ application, the grant made by the State Government would be routed through the Registrar of the Magadh University and salary should be paid to only those teaching and non-teaching staff of the College, whose names found place in the salary bills from the months of October, 1998 to March, 1999. It was also directed that the Registrar of the University would forward the salary bills for the aforesaid months in the same manner as the salary bill for the month of October, 1998, was prepared and forwarded, to the Government, who will release fund in his name and the Registrar shall make payment in the manner as laid down in the Government order dated 6.11.1985. Again on 16.7.1999, a similar interim order was passed directing the State Government to release the salary, which would be paid to the teachers in the light of the order passed by this Court. 9. Again on 16.7.1999, a similar interim order was passed directing the State Government to release the salary, which would be paid to the teachers in the light of the order passed by this Court. 9. While the said writ application was pending for decision on the question as to which Governing Body was the real Governing Body, the plaintiff-opposite parties filed a title suit, out of which this civil revision arises, on 4.8.1999 claiming that they are the real office-bearers of the Governing Body and their functioning is being disturbed by the defendants, who are wrongly claiming to be duly elected office bearers of the Governing Body. Relief prayed for was that the plaintiffs are to be declared duly elected office bearers of the Governing Body of the College. While the title suit was pending, C.W.J.C. No. 3175 of 1999 was disposed of on 29.6.2000. The learned Single Judge of this court having noticed that the title suit was pending in the Civil Court and that a Three Man Committee has already submitted a report, did not decide the dispute as to which Governing Body is to manage the affairs of the College and directed the University to continue the ad hoc arrangement for payment of salary in favour of the employees of the College in terms of the interim order dated 29.4.1999 till a final decision taken in respect of Governing Body in pursuance of any order of competent court of law and/or by decision of a competent authority and/ or in pursuance of fresh election. AH the staff who are receiving salary will continue to receive salary, in the same manner, in accordance with law, subject to the satisfaction of the University authorities. 10. In the aforesaid title suit, on 9.8.1999, the plaintiffs filed an injunction petition under Order 39, rules 1 and 2, read with 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer to issue an interim injunction restraining the defendants, including the two petitioners claiming President and Secretary of the Governing Body, from causing any interference with the day-to-day working of the management of the College. Status quo was granted on that day and show-cause notice was issued and, thereafter, these two petitioners, who were defendant nos. 2 and 3, filed separate show-cause stating therein that on 11.10.1998 the members of the Council under the Presidentship of Shri S. Waris Imam (defendant no. Status quo was granted on that day and show-cause notice was issued and, thereafter, these two petitioners, who were defendant nos. 2 and 3, filed separate show-cause stating therein that on 11.10.1998 the members of the Council under the Presidentship of Shri S. Waris Imam (defendant no. 1) held a meeting, which elected him as the Chairman of the Council. Seven persons were elected as members of the Governing Body of the College. On 17.10.1998, the office bearers of the Governing Body were elected in terms of the Bye-laws and defendant no. 2 Md. Quasim (petitioner no. 1) was elected as President and defendant no. 3 S. Naqui Imam (petitioner no. 2) was elected as the Secretary of the Governing Body of the College. The Chairman of the Council submitted a resolution dated 11.10.1998 of the Council to the J.G., Registration, under the provisions of the Act. After their election. the Principal started creating trouble, as a result of which there was difficulty in payment of salary to the teachers and staff of the College and, accordingly, he was put under suspension on 15.12.1998 for committing financial irregularity and one Ahasan Akhtar was appointed as officiating Principal of the College, who retired on 31.1.1999 and as such the Governing Body in his place appointed one Md. Aiaz Ahmad Khan as Principal Incharge of the College with effect from 1.2.1999. They also stated that the State Government constituted a Three Man Committee, which submitted a report finding their Governing Body to be the real Governing Body. 11. The Subordinate Judge, by order dated 10.9.1999, granted injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff-opposite parties and restrained the defendant-petitioners from causing interference in the day-today working of the plaintiffs and the said order was upheld in appeal. Both the courts below have found that the plaintiffs have prima facie case and the balance of convenience was also in their favour and refusal to grant injunction will result in irreparable loss. 12. Both the courts below have found that the plaintiffs have prima facie case and the balance of convenience was also in their favour and refusal to grant injunction will result in irreparable loss. 12. In exercise of revisional power, the court will interfere only when the case comes within the purview of any of the three clauses of sub-section (1) of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and no appeal is provided against the said order to the High Court or any court and the order is such which either would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding in favour of one or the other party or if the order is allowed to stand, the same would cause irreparable injury or failure of justice to the party against whom the order has been rendered. Errors of law or fact even if gross are not the ground to interfere in revision unless there is jurisdictional error. In the matter of temporary injunction if both the courts below have either granted injunction or rejected temporary injunction, the power of this court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is limited and unless it is found that there is non-consideration of important material on the record or the order is such which has occasioned material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction or there is manifest injustice, the court will not interfere in the matter. In other words, unless the finding of fact suffers from jurisdictional error or manifest injustice, this court will not interfere with the order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The Apex court in the case of Mahabir Prasad Jain vs. Ganga Singh, reported in (1999) 8 S.C.C. 274 : 1999(3) PLJR (SC) 189 has held that the High Court will fail in its duty in exercise of power under section 115 of the Code if it does not interfere when the court below has passed an order ignoring the material evidence on the record. 13. The facts of the present case have to be considered in the light of the well-settled law. As stated above, the main controversy is that there are two sets of persons, who are claiming to be the real Governing Body of the College. The defendants claim that the meeting of the Council was held on 11.10.1998 and defendant no. 1 Md. As stated above, the main controversy is that there are two sets of persons, who are claiming to be the real Governing Body of the College. The defendants claim that the meeting of the Council was held on 11.10.1998 and defendant no. 1 Md. Waris Imam was elected as the Chairman of the Council and seven persons were elected as members of the Governing Body and on 17.10.1998, the office bearers of the Governing Body were appointed. Petitioner no. 1 Md. Quasim was appointed as President and petitioner no. 2 S. Naqui Imam as Secretary and others were also appointed on other posts, whereas according to the plaintiffs, meeting was held on 15.11.1998 and plaintiff no. 2 Masood Manjur was elected as Chairman of the Council and seven persons were elected as members of the Governing Body. On 24.11.1998, plaintiff no. 3 S.K.R. Shamsi was appointed as President and plaintiff no. 4 S. Quaisar Sharfuddin as Secretary of the Governing Body of the College. 14. Admitted position is that the Council was registered under the Act. Under the provisions of the Act, after election of the Governing Body is held, an information has to be sent to the I.G., Registration. As regards the Governing Body constituted by the defendants, an information was sent to the I.G., Registration and which has been acknowledged by him as the same is evident from the materials on record, including the report of the Three Man Committee. The Government constituted a Three Man Committee, which found that the constitution of the Governing Body in the meeting held on 15.11.1998 as claimed by the plaintiffs was doubtful and suspicious. Both the courts below have not either considered the report of the Three Man Committee constituted by the State Government or taken note of the fact that the plaintiffs Governing Body did not inform about the election of the office bearers to the I.G., Registration, as provided under the Act. The non-consideration of the aforesaid two material facts while deciding the question of prima-facie case and irreparable injury, in my view, amounts to the courts below having acted with material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction and have, thus, committed jurisdictional error. On this ground alone, the matter has to be remitted to the trial court to consider the question afresh. 15. On this ground alone, the matter has to be remitted to the trial court to consider the question afresh. 15. There is another ground to remit the matter to the trial court to decide as to whether it was a case where temporary injunction was to be granted in view of the subsequent order passed by this court in the aforesaid writ application directing the University to continue the ad hoc arrangement for payment of salary in favour of the employees of the College in terms of the interim order dated 29.4.1999 till a final decision is taken in respect of a Governing Body in pursuance of any order of the competent court of law and/or by decision of a competent authority and/or in pursuance of fresh election. 16. In the result, this Civil Revision is allowed and both the orders passed by the trial court as well as the appellate court are set aside. The matter is remitted to the trial court to consider the question afresh. It is made clear that as ordered by this court in the aforesaid writ application, the interim arrangement will continue and the salary will be paid to only those teaching and non-teaching staff of the College, who were ordered to be paid their salary in terms of the interim order dated 29.4.1999. The trial court is also directed to dispose of the suit within six months from the date of receipt of the order.