Judgment :- The defendant-trust has filed the present revision as against the dismissal of the application filed by it under Section 151 CPC to dismiss the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs as having become infructuous due to the happening of a subsequent event. 2. The respondents herein instituted O.S.No:482 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Erode, as against the petitioners trust for declaration to declare the General Body Meeting and the election to the General Council, Executive Committee and Office Bearers of the Trust held on 25. 2000 as null and void and for consequential relief. It is the case of the plaintiffs that it is an election meeting held on 25. 2000 and further in the absence of the resolution passed in the Executive committee and without notice to the respondents, it is bad in law. 3. Subsequently, the respondents/plaintiffs also filed another suit in O.S.No:1287 of 2004 before the same court praying for declaration that the suspension order communicated on 212. 2001 passed by the petitioner-trust is not valid and for consequential injunction restraining the petitioner from holding the General Body Meeting on 12. 2002 or after as intimated to other members, without notice to the respondents herein. In the said suit the plaintiffs have also sought for a prayer to conduct fresh election as per the bye law of the trust. Pending the said suit, they filed I.A.No:119 of 2002 restraining the petitioner-trust from holding the General Body Meeting on or after 12. 2002 without notice to the respondents. The said Interlocutory Application was allowed and the appeal before the first appellate court and the revision before this court in CRP.No.1355 of 2004 filed by the petitioner-trust have been dismissed. Ultimately, the suit has been decreed on 110. 2006. .4. While so, when the first suit O.S.No:482 of 2004 was pending, the defendants filed I.A.No:327 of 2005 during September, 2005 to dismiss the suit as infructuous in view of the Election held on 211. 2004. It is also stated in the affidavit that the General Body Meeting was conducted after due notice to the respondents. The plaintiffs resisted the said application contending that the very conduct of the General Body Meeting on 211. 2004 and the consequential election is bad and contrary to the orders passed in I.A.No.119 of 2002 in O.S.No.1287 of 2004. 2004. It is also stated in the affidavit that the General Body Meeting was conducted after due notice to the respondents. The plaintiffs resisted the said application contending that the very conduct of the General Body Meeting on 211. 2004 and the consequential election is bad and contrary to the orders passed in I.A.No.119 of 2002 in O.S.No.1287 of 2004. It was also contended by the plaintiffs that no notice was issued to them as per the resolution Ex.P.1 which says that it is resolved not to send any notice to the plaintiffs. 5. The learned II Additional District Munsif, Erode, on a consideration of the averments, Exhibits and also the respective submissions of the parties dismissed the said application. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner-trust has come before this court by filing the present revision petition. 6. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner-trust contended that the petitioner-trust is a registered one and it is governed by its own bye law and rules for its proper management. As per the Rules, the period of office is 3 years. The duration of office also expired in 2003 and for the subsequent period also elections were conducted and new office bearers are now holding the office. The Executive Committee meeting was conducted on 210. 2004 and elections were held on 211. 2004 as per the rules in the bye law. The plaintiffs had not obtained any interim order of stay or injunction as against the petitioner-rust from holding the election. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner the cause of action for the present suit is entirely different and it would not in any manner vitiate the election meeting held on 210. 2004. The validity of the elections held on 25. 2000, challenged in the present suit is of no consequence for adjudicating the correctness of the election conducted on 211. 2004. .7. It is also contended that non issuance of the notice, even assuming it to be true for the election held in November, 2004, would not in any manner sanctify the continuation of the suit which challenges the election held on 25. 2000 since election for the subsequent period automatically erases defect, if any, in the elections for which the period of office is already over. 2000 since election for the subsequent period automatically erases defect, if any, in the elections for which the period of office is already over. The learned counsel further contended that the trial court has failed to note that the veracity, validity and correctness of the elections held in May 200 cannot be probed after the period of office is over and further status quo ante cannot be granted in view of substitution of new office bearers in an entirely different election. Further the relief sought for in the suit is incapable of being granted and the suit should be dismissed as infructuous taking into consideration of the subsequent events which renders no cause of action to continue the suit. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., Vs. Machado Brothers and others, reported in 2004 (II) SCC 168. 8. To decide the points, it would be relevant to extract the very prayers sought for in the suit. They are: .(a) declaring that the General Body Meeting and election tot he General Council, Executive committee and office bearers of the first defendant trust held on 25. 2000 are not valid, illegal, arbitrary under law; .(b) granting the permanent injunction restraining the defendants 3 to 15, 17 5o 33 from functioning as General Council and Executive Committee members and office bearers of the 1st defendant Trust in pursuance of the election held on 25. 2000; .(c) granting the mandatory injunction directing to conduct a fresh election to the general council members, Executive Committee Members and the office bearers of the first defendant trust as per bye-law by appointing an Advocate Commissioner or Registrar of Societies under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. 9. Thus a perusal of the prayers "a" to "c" would clearly show that the very election dated 25. 2000 is bad and therefore all the actions taken would become unauthorised, if the suit is decreed. Further, according to the plaintiffs, the very same office bearers have convened the specific general body and they have re-elected themselves and hence the suit will not become infructuous. Further a fresh election is sought to be held by appointing an Advocate Commissioner or Registrar of Societies as per the bye-law. On this count, also the suit will not become infructuous. .10. Further a fresh election is sought to be held by appointing an Advocate Commissioner or Registrar of Societies as per the bye-law. On this count, also the suit will not become infructuous. .10. Even though, the petitioner-trust claim that due notice has been given to all the members, including the plaintiffs as per the bye-laws, it has not been done so and there is no material to prove the same. On the contrary, as seen from Ex.P.1, it is clear that the plaintiffs were prevented from attending the General Body Meeting and in the elections. 11. Further it is not as if any stay or injunction has not been obtained by the plaintiffs to hold any meeting or conducting elections. The plaintiffs have obtained interim injunction restraining the petitioner-trust from holding the general body meeting on 12. 2002 or thereafter as intimated to its members. The appeal before the first appellate court and the revision before this court confirmed the interim injunction obtained by the plaintiffs. In CMP.No:12862 of 2004 in CRP.No:1355 of 2004, this court by order dated 8. 2004 made it clear that any decision taken in the meeting to be held shall not be given effect until further orders from this court. Ultimately the CRP preferred by the petitioner-trust has been dismissed and the suit also been decreed. When the said interim order and the main CRP and the suits were pending disposal, the Executive Meeting was conducted on 210. 2004, wherein it was resolved to conduct elections on 211. 2004 and elections were also held accordingly, under the guise that the period has already over as per the bye-law. When this court has restrained the petitioner-trust not even to give effect to the decisions taken in the meeting already held, it has conducted subsequent meetings and elections which is nothing but violation of the courts orders. .12. In the above facts and peculiar circumstances of the case, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., Vs. Machado Brothers and others, reported in 2004 (II) SCC 168 cannot be pressed into service. .12. In the above facts and peculiar circumstances of the case, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., Vs. Machado Brothers and others, reported in 2004 (II) SCC 168 cannot be pressed into service. In the above decision no doubt is to the effect that by a subsequent event if the original proceedings has become infructuous, ex debito justitiae, it will be the duty of the court to take such action as is necessary in the interest of justice which includes disposing of the infructuous litigation. It is also held by the Honble Supreme Court that continuation of a suit which has become infructuous by disappearance of the cause of action would amount to an abuse of the process of the court and interest of justice requires that such suit should be disposed of as having become infructuous and of course when such an application is made, the court will enquire into the alleged facts and circumstances to find out whether the pending litigation has in fact become infructuous or not. But as far as the present case is concerned, in view of the facts and circumstances as narrated above, we cannot come to the conclusion that no cause of action exists for the continuance of the suit. The decision relied on by the learned counsel is also distinguishable on facts viz., in the said decision the first suit has been dismissed as having become infructuous by the Honble Apex Court which has challenged the original termination notice of the agency, when third suit was filed and pending challenging the validity of the subsequent termination notice, which is not so in the present case. As already stated above, some the relief’s sought for in the suit are very much available and the plaintiffs having obtained a decree in their favour, the defendants-petitioner-trust has to abide by the same. Therefore the contention of the learned counsel that only to keep alive the interlocutory order the infructuous suit is being kept on file which amounts to putting the cart before the dead horse cannot also be sustained. 13. Further, in the present case the evidence of the plaintiff is over and the suit is in the cross examination stage of the defendants. Therefore, it is a fit case to direct the trial court to dispose of the suit at the earliest. 13. Further, in the present case the evidence of the plaintiff is over and the suit is in the cross examination stage of the defendants. Therefore, it is a fit case to direct the trial court to dispose of the suit at the earliest. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and the learned II Additional District Munsif, Erode is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. No costs.