ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 10-10-2006 passed in I.A.No.661 of 2006 in O.P.No.60 of 2006 on the file of the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad wherein the application filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein to take up the issue whether the Election Petition filed by the petitioners is barred by limitation" was dismissed. 2. The Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of both parties, framed the following issues for trial on 21-8-2006. (i) Whether the declaration by R-3 (Election Officer) on 29-10-2005 that the Managing Committee headed by Sri P. Narendra Chowdary as unanimously elected, is valid and binding on all the members of the society? (ii) Whether the preparation of voters list by A-4 is proper and correct? (iii) Whether the election process followed by R-3 is in accordance with relevant Rules of APCS Act & Rules of 1964, relating to the elections of the societies? (iv) Whether the enhanced share capital was brought to the notice of all the members of the society in time and whether procedure prescribed was followed by the respondent in finalizing the list of valid voters? (v) Whether the Election Petition fled by the petitioners is barred by limitation? 3. It is necessary to notice few incidents, which occurred before the cause of action arose for filing this writ petition. 4. It appears that election notice for conducting elections to the 1st petitioner Society was published on 19-10-2005. Last date for receipt of nominations was 21-1 0-2005, scrutiny of nominations was 22-10-2005, withdrawal of nominations and publication of valid nominations was 23-10-2005 and date of election was 29-10-2005. After scrutiny of the nominations and withdrawal of nominations, only 15 persons remained as valid contestants and the election officer declared them as elected unanimously on 29-10-2005. 5. In the meanwhile, respondents 1 to 3 filed Writ Petition No.22928 of 2005 seeking to declare the election notice dated 19-10-2005 of the 3rd respondent and all further proceedings therein for conducting elections to the Managing Committee of the Jubilee Hills Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. on 19-10-2005 without convening a general body meeting for the purpose and without any notice or opportunity to pay the deficit share capital to all the members of the society, as arbitrary and illegal. They have also filed another Writ Petition No.23274 of 2005 seeking to declare the action of the respondents 2 and 3 therein in rejecting the nominations of the petitioners therein and all further proceedings without convening a general body meeting for the said purpose and without any notice or opportunity to pay the deficit share capital by the petitioners as null and void and non est. 6. Thereafter, both the writ petitions referred to above were dismissed as not maintainable; however, petitioners were granted liberty to challenge the election before the competent Tribunal following due process of law. Aggrieved by the same, respondents 1 to 3 filed Writ Appeal NosA06 and 407 of 2006 and the same were also dismissed on 20-4-2006. Thereafter, they filed a.p.No.60 of 2006 on 5-5-2006 before the Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad seeking to set aside the election conducted on 29-10-2005 as non est and void. 7. It seems that the petitioners filed the present I.A. 661 of 2006 to take up the issue No.5 - whether the Election Petition filed by the petitioners is barred by limitation - and to decide the same as a preliminary issue. After hearing both the sides, the said application was dismissed on various grounds. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 8. Heard both the sides. 9. There is no necessity to go into all the details. It is an admitted fact that elections to the Managing Committee of the society were held on 29-10-2005 and to the office bearers on 30-10-2005. an 5-5-2006 i.e., after more than seven months, the O.P. was filed. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the dispute was pending in the above writ petitions and writ appeals before this Court, filing of O.P. on 5-5-2006 is saved in view of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 11. It may have to be noticed, in this case, the cause of action for filing the writ petitions is altogether different from the cause of action that arose for filing the above election O.P. before the Co-operative Tribunal. These are two different causes of action. 11. It may have to be noticed, in this case, the cause of action for filing the writ petitions is altogether different from the cause of action that arose for filing the above election O.P. before the Co-operative Tribunal. These are two different causes of action. The Writ Petitions were filed questioning the very election notice on the ground that the same was issued without convening general body meeting for the said purpose and without any notice or opportunity to pay the deficit share capital to all the members of the society and also to declare the action of respondents 2 and 3 therein in rejecting the nominations of the petitioners therein as illegal. Those Writ Petitions were dismissed with the observations as noticed above on 16-3-2006. The Writ Appeals filed there against were also dismissed on 20-4-2006. I am of the prima facie opinion that mere filing of the Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals would not save the statutory limitation as provided under the Limitation Act for the purpose of filing an Election Petition. Admittedly, the Election O.P. was filed on 5-5-2006 i.e. after more than 7 months of the elections. In fact, nothing prevented the petitioners from filing an Election O.P. within the period of limitation as required under the law. I am also of the prima facie opinion that the pendency of the Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals before the Court does not save the limitation as provided under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 12. The cause of action that arose for the purpose of filing the Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals is altogether different from that of the cause of action that arose for the purpose of filing Election Petition (O.P.). Therefore, the time that has been consumed in deciding the Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals has no relevance for considering the limitation in the O.P. 13. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 10-10-2006 made in I.A.No.661 of 2006 in O.S.No.60 of 2006 on the file of A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad is set aside and it is ordered accordingly. In the result, the Tribunal is directed to take up issue No.5 and decide the same on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. No costs.