Judgment :- Challenge is made to a common order of the Principal Subordinate Judge, the Scheme Court, Mayiladuthurai, made in E.A.Nos.1 and 3 of 2007 in O.S.No.234 of 1994, a scheme suit. 2. Those two execution applications came to be filed by the first respondent namely S.Sukumar, for declaration that the resolution of no confidence motion in respect of the President, Secretary and Treasurer passed in the meeting that was convened and held on 12. 2007, and the entire proceedings of the meeting held on 22. 2007, pursuant to which the revision petitioner and two others were appointed as President, Secretary and Treasurer of the Educational Committee respectively, are illegal and bad in law. 3. The facts admitted by both sides, can be stated thus: A trust called Anbanathapuram Vahaira Charities (A.V.C.), with vast lands came to be created by the original owners, who hailed from five different families. Out of these members, one member would be from one family, and one of the family will have one additional member. The trust has three educational institutions namely Engineering College, Arts and Science College and Polytechnic. The Educational Committee is actually administering the educational institutions. It consists of 8 members, out of whom 2 must be female members from those families, who are graduates. As far as the other 6 are concerned, they are the male members from the family. All must be appointed by the Scheme Court namely the Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai. The term of Office of those members is six years. The Principal of the Arts and Science College would be the Ex-Officio member of the Educational Committee. The Educational Committee is different from the College Committee. Out of the six male members of the Educational Committee, one would be the President; one would be the Secretary and one would be the Treasurer. These Office Bearers who are three in number, would be elected by the Educational Committee. The Principal has no say as far as the election process was concerned. The term of office of these Office Bearers is three years. The Educational Committee is, admittedly, a registered one. The Scheme Court had already framed a decree; thereby, the rules have already been in existence, and the last modification was made in 1998 which is in force. The period of the Secretary of the Educational Committee came to an end on 1. The Educational Committee is, admittedly, a registered one. The Scheme Court had already framed a decree; thereby, the rules have already been in existence, and the last modification was made in 1998 which is in force. The period of the Secretary of the Educational Committee came to an end on 1. 2007, and thus, there arose a vacancy. One Mr.Karthikeyan, who was the President, became the additional charge of the Secretary from that time. The revision petitioner one Rathinakumar, one of the members of the Educational Committee, gave a request on 21. 2007 to convene a meeting and to pass a resolution. It was declined on 21. 2007. On 12. 2007, a General Body Meeting was convened. The agenda for that meeting was for the passing of the annual accounts. In that meeting, a proposal was made by the revision petitioner Rathinakumar, for a resolution in respect of no confidence motion against the President. Out of 8 members, 1 was vacant as stated earlier. Thus, out of 7, the President, one among them, opposed, and 2 remained silent, and the remaining 4 supported the resolution. Thus, it was opposed by 4. While the matter stood thus, the said Rathinakumar filed an application before the Registrar of Societies for the purpose of convening a meeting in order to elect the new Office Bearers. The Principal, under the circumstances, went on leave. The revision petitioner Rathinakumar nominated one of the H.O.D. to act as Principal from 22. 2007. In the meanwhile, the Registrar of Societies directed the Principal in-charge to convene a meeting. The same was challenged in this Court by way of a writ petition, and it was allowed in March 2007, setting aside the order of the Registrar. This Court has also observed that in such a situation, Civil Court is to be moved and orders have got to be obtained and not otherwise by writ petition. Following the same, the present first respondent namely Sukumar, moved the Scheme Court by way of these two applications in EA Nos.1 and 3 of 2007 challenging the resolution passed on 12. 2007, and the conduct of meeting on 22. 2007 and seeking a declaration that they were bad in law. Both applications were taken on file. On enquiry, the Scheme Court allowed the applications. Aggrieved, the revision petitioner has brought forth these two revisions before this Court. 4. 2007, and the conduct of meeting on 22. 2007 and seeking a declaration that they were bad in law. Both applications were taken on file. On enquiry, the Scheme Court allowed the applications. Aggrieved, the revision petitioner has brought forth these two revisions before this Court. 4. Advancing his arguments on behalf of the revision petitioner, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that in the instant case, the resolution passed on 12. 2007 for no confidence motion, was perfectly valid in the eye of law; that originally, there was a request on 21. 2007 for the said purpose; but, it was unlawfully rejected by the President since it was against him; that it is true that on 12. 2007, a meeting was convened for the purpose of passing of accounts; that it is also true that a request was made on that day by the revision petitioner; that it was an Annual General Body Meeting; that there were 8 members; that out of 8, 1 remained vacant; that at that time, when the resolution was passed, 7 were available; that as far as the accounts are concerned, 2 supported the accounts, and 4 opposed the same; that while the matter stood thus, the revision petitioner moved a resolution seeking no-confidence motion against the President and Treasurer; that it is pertinent to point out that when it was moved, 4 supported the resolution, and 2 abstained from voting, and the other one namely the President, opposed the motion made by the revision petitioner; that it would be quite clear that it was an Annual General Body Meeting; that even as per Rule 31 available, a request could be made in the meeting in respect of any urgent business; that when it was brought, out of 7 members, 4 have supported the resolution; and that the lower Court has also found in its order that since it was refused in the earlier occasion by the President, it cannot be said to be unjustified in bringing forth such a motion that time. .5. The learned Senior Counsel would further add that the Principal in-charge convened a meeting on 22. .5. The learned Senior Counsel would further add that the Principal in-charge convened a meeting on 22. 2007; that in that meeting, the revision petitioner Rathinakumar was elected as President, Sajjal as Secretary and Maruthavanan as Treasurer; that in order to fill up the vacancy which arose in respect of the post of President and Secretary, that was to be done; that if not done, the further proceedings of the entire committee would become a standstill; and that under the circumstances, it was done so. Added further the learned Senior Counsel that in the instant case, neither any fault could be found, nor the resolution passed on 12. 2007 could be stated in any way as defective or infirm in the eye of law; that it was an Annual General Body Meeting; that 7 were present; that 1 was vacant; that out of 7, the President has opposed; that out of the remaining 6, 2 abstained from voting, and 4 have supported; that once it has been passed procedurally, it cannot be stated to be in any way against law or illegal; but, the lower Court while considering all the aspects of the matter and finding that originally there was a refusal on the part of the President, which was not correct, has taken an erroneous view that there was no consent by the President to bring the matter as an urgent one on that day; that naturally one could not expect that the President against whom no confidence motion was to be made, would give consent for such a resolution to be done; that following the same, another meeting was held on 22. 2007 in which these persons were elected as President, Secretary and Treasurer procedurally following the Rules framed by the Scheme Court; and that under the circumstances, the order of the lower Court has got to be set aside. .6. In answer to the above, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent one Sukumar that in the instant case, all the procedural formalities have been given a go-by; that it is an admitted position that the Rules have been framed; that once a meeting is convened for a particular purpose, nothing more could be done; that admittedly, for the meeting on 12. 2007, the agenda was only for the passing of the accounts; that in that meeting, a request was made by the petitioner for no confidence motion, which was not in agenda; that apart from that, even no notice was given; that it is true that Rule 31 provides for any urgent matter; but, the removal of the President or Secretary or Treasurer thereby usurping the power on the very day cannot be made by way of urgent motion; that apart from that, nothing could be called without any notice; that it cannot also be done without the consent of the President; that in the instant case, the President has opposed the same; that the same has also been recorded; that it was beyond the purpose for which the meeting was convened or conducted; that the lower Court was perfectly correct in declaring the same as invalid; that in the instant case, once the powers were usurped by way of unlawful resolution passed on 12. 2007, and there was also a direction to the Principal in-charge to convene a meeting, and accordingly, he convened a meeting whereby they elected new persons as President, Secretary and Treasurer, and the earlier resolution passed on 12. 2007, was of no legal consequence, all other things following the same, would be of no avail; that under the circumstances, the resolution passed on 12. 2007 and the meeting held on 22. 2007, were declared as invalid; that the Scheme Court has given a reasoned order, and hence, it has got to be sustained. 7. 2007, was of no legal consequence, all other things following the same, would be of no avail; that under the circumstances, the resolution passed on 12. 2007 and the meeting held on 22. 2007, were declared as invalid; that the Scheme Court has given a reasoned order, and hence, it has got to be sustained. 7. Added further the learned Senior Counsel that at the time of the filing of these revisions, interim orders have been obtained stating before the Court that the name of the Counsel for the caveator has also been printed; but, he did not appear; that it is pertinent to point out that the caveator appeared through a Counsel of this Court; but, his name was not printed; that under the circumstances, such an interim order has been taken despite the fact that the caveat was registered by the first respondent Sukumar, and thus, all havoc have been created after the passing of the interim stay; that it is true that the period in respect of the Secretary, was over, and the President of the Committee has taken charge as additional charge; that further the period of the other two would come to an end only after a full term of three years; that even before that, all these unlawful resolutions have been passed, which were of no consequence; that the lower Court was perfectly correct in declaring them as illegal, and hence, the order of the lower Court has got to be sustained. 8. After careful consideration of the rival submissions made, this Court is of the considered opinion that both the revisions have got to be dismissed. It is not in controversy that a meeting was convened and conducted for the purpose of passing of accounts by the Educational Committee on 12. 2007. While it stood so, passing of a resolution of no confidence motion suddenly cannot be countenanced. The revision petitioners side wanted to rely on Rule 31. Rule 31 runs as follows: "A member of the Committee with the consent of the Chairman of the meetings may bring forward without previous notice any urgent business not included in the agenda for meeting." Rule 31 can be applied only for the purpose of urgent matters. The revision petitioners side wanted to rely on Rule 31. Rule 31 runs as follows: "A member of the Committee with the consent of the Chairman of the meetings may bring forward without previous notice any urgent business not included in the agenda for meeting." Rule 31 can be applied only for the purpose of urgent matters. This Court is of the considered opinion that any request for resolution of no confidence motion and that too, without any notice whatsoever, cannot be termed as an urgent matter. In order to give application to Rule 31, if a request is for a particular thing to be done in a particular meeting and even if it is made without prior notice, it should have got the prior approval or consent of the President. In the instant case, the President has opposed the same, and it has also been recorded. It is not a case, where, in the opinion of this Court, Rule 31 can be applied. Hence, the revision petitioner cannot have shelter under Rule 31 as stated above. 9. The specific agenda for the meeting on 12. 2007 was only for the passing of the accounts. Under the circumstances, no such resolution for no confidence motion can be either requested or passed. Once it is not in the agenda, it cannot be done. Further, without notice, it has been done. In the case on hand, it was not at all a subject covered in the agenda, and thus, no resolution can be passed without agenda. But, it was done without notice and that too, without the consent of the President. Hence, the resolution cannot, but be termed only as illegal, and it has got to be declared as invalid. 10. The contention put forth by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that out of 8, 1 was vacant, and out of the remaining 7, 2 abstained from voting, and out of 5, 4 have supported the resolution was of no consequence in law. 10. The contention put forth by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that out of 8, 1 was vacant, and out of the remaining 7, 2 abstained from voting, and out of 5, 4 have supported the resolution was of no consequence in law. Once a particular meeting was convened for a particular purpose, and some other thing happened, and even the majority was in favour of such a resolution passed, and it was not in the agenda, and for the said purpose, the meeting has not been convened, the resolution of no confidence motion passed, would be of no consequence in law, since the reason being that it is not pre thought of. Further, even if it has got the full majority, the same was of no consequence. In such circumstances, it cannot but be termed as bad and illegal. 11. As far as the next meeting was concerned, that was on 22. 2007, where the revision petitioner and two others have been elected as President, Secretary and Treasurer respectively. It is pertinent to point out that following the resolution passed for no confidence motion on 12. 2007, at that time, the Principal went on leave, and one of the H.O.D. was made suddenly as Principal, and he was also directed to convene a meeting. Accordingly, he convened a meeting on 22. 2007, where the revision petitioner and others have been elected as President, Secretary and Treasurer respectively. Now, at this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the term of the President who was elected for three years, would come to an end in October, and he was also acting as Secretary during the relevant time. As held above, the resolution passed on 12. 2007 for no confidence motion, was bad and of no legal consequence. Under the circumstances, without any impediment it can be stated that he continues to be the President, and if to be so, there was no question of making anybody else as in-charge of the same, or he could call for any meeting, and any resolution passed on any subsequent date, would be of no avail to call themselves as newly elected President, Secretary and Treasurer respectively. It is a clear case where Rules have been framed by the Scheme Court, and members have been elected. 12. The further contention that there was originally a request made on 21. It is a clear case where Rules have been framed by the Scheme Court, and members have been elected. 12. The further contention that there was originally a request made on 21. 2007 for the purpose of no confidence motion; but, it was declined by the President, and hence, it can be presumed that such a request was also to be one of the matters of agenda for the meeting on 12. 2007, though pointed out by the lower Court, cannot be countenanced in law. In a given situation where a request was made by one of the committee members to call for no confidence motion in a meeting and even if the President has declined the same as put forth by the petitioners side, it cannot be stated that he has no recourse in law; but, he would have well moved this Court or the Scheme Court stating the circumstances. Instead, on 12. 2007, a request was made suddenly even without a notice, and a resolution of no confidence motion has been passed. Thus, such contention does not carry any merit whatsoever. The lower Court has considered the full circumstances and also found that the Rules what were framed, were not strictly followed, and the meeting on 12. 2007 for no confidence motion was without any sanction in law, and it was not even a subject in the agenda and was also even without notice. No doubt, it can be done with the prior approval of the President; but, it was not so. Once the meeting in which the resolution of no confidence motion was passed on 12. 2007, is declared as bad and illegal, all other things following the same, was of no consequence. Hence, they have got to be brushed aside. The lower Court was perfectly correct in recording a finding that both the resolution made on 12. 2007, and the entire proceedings of the meeting held on 22. 2007, are bad in law. The said order is a reasoned one. This Court is unable to see anything either factually or legally to interfere in the order of the Court below. 13. In the result, both these civil revisions require an order of dismissal. Accordingly, they are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MPs are also dismissed.