JUDGMENT C. K. Prasad, C.J. and A. P. Sahi, J.—These appeals under Rule 5, Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules have been preferred by the rival claimants, against the judgment dated 23.7.2009, professing themselves to be the validly elected Committee of Management of a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, namely Adarsh Shiksha Samiti, Charibana, Karchana, Allahabad, which runs a Junior High School in the name of Swatantra Senani Ayodhya Prasad Tewari Junior High School, Charibana, Karchana, Allahabad. 2. The Society, which is admittedly registered under the 1860 Act, stands renewed upto the period 30.9.2009. A set of bye-laws have been framed and according to the said bye-laws, the elections of the office bearers and members of the Committee of Management has to be held annually. The dispute with regard to the claim of Management arose when Srikant Tewari claiming to be the Secretary-cum-Manager, the appellant in Special Appeal No. 1029 of 2009, submitted his list of office bearers before the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Allahabad, on the strength of the election held on 13.1.2008. This list was submitted on 29.1.2008. The Assistant Registrar did not find any endorsement of no objection of the outgoing office bearers including that of Rajmani Pandey, who was the outgoing Manager and is the appellant in Special Appeal No. 1242 of 2009, as such, he issued a notice to Rajmani Pandey with a copy of the same to Srikant Tewari. Objections were filed by Rajmani Pandey and inspite of demand by the Assistant Registrar, no document pertaining to the elections previously held in the preceding 5 years were submitted. The Assistant Registrar, after assessing the rival claims and the facts that were pleaded, came to the conclusion that the proceedings that were later on submitted by Rajmani Pandey pertaining to the alleged elections dated 2.10.2007 were all manipulated documents and had been submitted in order to raise a dispute with regard to the elections. The election of Rajmani Pandey were disbelieved by the Assistant Registrar on the ground that the contention that elections ought to have been held on the completion of 5 years yet the elections had been held before time, 2 years prior to the expiry of the period, was unacceptable as Rajmani Pandey himself claimed to have been elected in the said elections. 3. 3. The Assistant Registrar, thereafter, went on to hold that the elections as submitted by Srikant Tewari have been conducted in accordance with the bye-laws as in support of the same the newspaper advertisement for holding of the election, the affidavits of the employees and other documents were submitted. Accordingly, the list submitted by Srikant Tewari was accepted by the Assistant Registrar vide order dated 15.4.2008. 4. The said order dated 15.4.2008 was assailed by Rajmani Pandey in the writ petition which has given rise to the present appeals. The learned single Judge recorded the interim order passed by this Court in the writ petition on 4.4.2008 whereby status quo was directed to be maintained by the parties with a further clarification that the Committee of Management which was functioning, and in effective control as on the date of passing of the interim order, shall continue to manage the institution in the meantime till the order is vacated or modified earlier. It was also brought on record before the learned single Judge that Srikant Tewari–the respondent in the writ petition had already held fresh elections on 4.1.2009. The learned single Judge interpreting the interim order passed by the Court held that the fresh elections which have been held during the pendency of the writ petition were in violation of the interim order dated 24.4.2008 and, as such, any action taken in violation of the interim order was a nullity and void ab initio. The contention raised on behalf of respondents that the petition had become infructuous on account of the expiry of the disputed tenure of the Committee of Management was rejected. The learned single Judge further went on to hold that it would be appropriate that the Registrar should hold fresh elections under sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Act. The other disputed questions of fact were left open to be agitated by the parties by filing a regular suit in case they are aggrieved. A positive direction was issued to the Registrar to get the election held after preparation of the voters list and it was further provided that the Society, in the meantime, shall be managed by a receiver to be nominated and appointed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad. 5. The rival claimants, aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, have preferred these 2 separate appeals. 5. The rival claimants, aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, have preferred these 2 separate appeals. We have heard Sri R. K. Ojha, learned counsel for the appellant–Srikant Tewari in Special Appeal No. 1129 of 2009 and Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel for the appellant-Rajmani Pandey in Special Appeal No. 1242 of 2009. The said appellants have been arrayed as respondents in the respective appeals as well. We have also heard the learned standing counsel on behalf of the State authorities–respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 6. Sri R. K. Ojha pressing his appeal urged that the impugned order of the learned single Judge is erroneous on both counts inasmuch as without holding that the elections of Srikant Tewari were invalid and without quashing the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 15.4.2008, the learned single Judge could not have conferred the jurisdiction on the Registrar to hold fresh elections under sub-section (2) of Section 25 and secondly the interim order passed by this Court on 24.4.2008, nowhere prevented the Committee of Srikant Tewari which had been recognized by the Assistant Registrar to hold fresh elections. Sri Ojha submits that admittedly the tenure of the Committee of Management is one year and, therefore, the Committee of Management, which had been recognized by the Assistant Registrar on 15.4.2008 and which had been permitted to continue under the interim order, was fully entitled to proceed to hold elections as the interim order nowhere prohibited the holding of fresh elections. He further submits that the interim order would relate only to the tenure which was in dispute and that the life of the interim order would not extend beyond the tenure of the Committee of Management. It is urged that if the bye-laws itself provide for a fixed tenure, then the tenure of the said Committee cannot be presumed to have been extended by virtue of the interim order either in fact or through any fiction. Accordingly, the conclusion drawn by the learned single Judge, according to Sri Ojha, that the fresh election dated 4.1.2009 was a nullity, is erroneous. Sri Ojha further submits that there was no occasion for this Court to have directed the District Magistrate to appoint a receiver as neither the bye-laws nor the 1860 Act contemplate any such appointment. Accordingly, the conclusion drawn by the learned single Judge, according to Sri Ojha, that the fresh election dated 4.1.2009 was a nullity, is erroneous. Sri Ojha further submits that there was no occasion for this Court to have directed the District Magistrate to appoint a receiver as neither the bye-laws nor the 1860 Act contemplate any such appointment. He has further submitted that even otherwise on merits, there is no infirmity in the elections of the appellant Srikant Tewari and the findings recorded by the Assistant Registrar do not require any interference by this Court. 7. Sri Ashok Khare, on the other hand, contends that he does not raise the issue of jurisdiction of the Assistant Registrar to decide the claims, but the Assistant Registrar, on erroneous assumptions of fact, has wrongly held the elections of Srikant Tewari to be valid. He contends that the election claimed by Srikant Tewari were never held by the outgoing Committee of which Rajmani Pandey was the Manager and, therefore, the Assistant Registrar erroneously accepted the same. He further contends that no members of the Committee of Management have been elected and inviting the attention of the Court to the elections dated 13.1.2008 contends that they do not conform to the bye-laws. He further submits that the learned single Judge adopted a third procedure to dispose of the writ petition without recording any finding on the validity of the elections of Srikant Tewari and, therefore, on this count the judgment deserves to be set aside. He contends that he has no objection in case fresh elections are held by the Registrar. He further submits that the fresh election dated 4.1.2009 cannot be accepted in the event it is found that the earlier elections dated 13.1.2008 were invalid. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that during the pendency of the writ petition, the appellant–Srikant Tewari came forward to inform the Court that fresh elections had been held on 4.1.2009 which is engaging the attention of the Assistant Registrar for appropriate orders. It is also not disputed by the parties that the interim order dated 24.4.2008 continued to operate throughout the pendency of the writ petition. It is also not disputed by the parties that the interim order dated 24.4.2008 continued to operate throughout the pendency of the writ petition. The issue as to what is the impact of the interim order need not detain us, inasmuch as the said interim order clearly directed the maintenance of status-quo in favour of the Committee which was functioning as on the date of passing of the interim order. The contention of Sri R. K. Ojha that the interim order would not extend the tenure of the Committee of Management has also to be accepted inasmuch as an interim order is provided to protect the interest of the parties pendente lite and to preserve the state of affairs as existing. The interim order, therefore, made a provision for the existing state of affairs namely the continuance of the Committee of Management which was claiming elections subject of course to the tenure of the Committee of Management. The interim order, in our opinion, cannot extend the tenure of the Committee of Management which is otherwise not provided under the bye-laws. The order of status-quo is to maintain the status of a Committee of Management which had been elected for a period of one year only. In case the interpretation put forth by the learned single Judge is accepted, then in that event if an interim order is allowed to continue for years together, the same would perpetuate the existence of a Committee of Management even beyond its tenure. The Committee of Management may in a given case continue to exist de facto but it cannot continue on the crutches of an interim order de-jure, beyond the period of the term for which it was elected. In the event the Court does contemplate the continuance of the Committee of Management, it would be only by way of an interim arrangement and the interim order cannot amount to extending the tenure by way of a fictional amendment of the term prescribed in the bye-laws. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the appellant–Committee headed by Srikant Tewari had no right to proceed to initiate and hold fresh elections on 4.1.2009. Even otherwise, the interim order dated 24.4.2008 did not prohibit the holding of the fresh elections. As a matter of fact, the rival claimant Rajmani Pandey also urged for the holding of fresh elections. Even otherwise, the interim order dated 24.4.2008 did not prohibit the holding of the fresh elections. As a matter of fact, the rival claimant Rajmani Pandey also urged for the holding of fresh elections. In such a situation, we are of the opinion that there was no violation of the interim order of this Court, that may result in declaring the elections to be automatically a nullity and void ab-initio. 9. Under the 1860 Act itself, there is a complete machinery provided for judging the validity of the elections or otherwise in the manner prescribed therein. The elections dated 4.1.2009, therefore, by virtue of the interim order dated 24.4.2008, cannot be said to be void ab-initio. Apart from this, it has already been pointed out that the correctness of the said elections dated 4.1.2009 is still engaging the attention of the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Allahabad. 10. Coming to the submission of the learned counsel of both the claimants that the learned single Judge ought to have assessed the validity of the impugned order dated 13.4.2008, we agree with their submissions that the learned single Judge could not have passed an order for holding of fresh elections unless and until the order dated 13.4.2008 was set aside or the validity of the elections dated 4.1.2009 were addressed on merits. We are of the opinion that the learned single Judge could not have issued the direction for holding of fresh elections unless and until the elections dated 13.1.2008 were discarded or the elections dated 4.1.2009 were held to be contrary to the bye-laws and the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The learned single Judge, it appears that in order to avoid further controversy, directed for the adoption of a procedure in order to facilitate the smooth functioning of the institution. This, in our opinion, could have been done by having decided the matter on merits and not by treating the elections to be a nullity or without dislodging the Committee of Management which had been recognized by the order dated 13.4.2008. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is unsustainable. 11. Coming to the question of the right of Srikant Tewari to hold elections, it is evident that the tenure, which was in dispute of the year 2008, had already come to an end. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is unsustainable. 11. Coming to the question of the right of Srikant Tewari to hold elections, it is evident that the tenure, which was in dispute of the year 2008, had already come to an end. The Assistant Registrar had accepted Srikant Tewari as the valid Manager under the order dated 13.4.2008 but that would not travel beyond the period for which the elections were held, more so when the said order of recognition was seriously under dispute. However, in our opinion, the said order would not come in the way of the Assistant Registrar to decide the validity of the elections dated 4.1.2009 independently. We, however, agree with the learned single Judge that in the event any disputed questions of fact are sought to be raised, then the party, having a grievance, can always file a regular suit and, as such, the findings recorded in the order dated 13.4.2008 would always be subject to a declaration made in appropriate proceedings by a competent Court. 12. We should not, however, be construed to hold that the elections set up by the appellant-Srikant Tewari are valid or otherwise as we have ourselves not entered into the merits of the claim of such elections. We are of the opinion that in the event there is a genuine and bona fide dispute, the same can always be agitated before the Assistant Registrar or before the prescribed authority in accordance with the provisions of 1860 Act and in the event any such dispute is raised, the said authorities are obliged to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 13. Accordingly, the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Allahabad (respondent No. 2 herein) shall proceed to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law in the light of the observations made herein- above as expeditiously as possible preferably within 6 weeks of the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him. 14. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed in the terms indicated herein- above and the impugned judgment dated 23.7.2009 is hereby set aside. No order as to cost.