ORDER The petitioner has called into question the endorsement dated 13-10-2008 (Annexure-E) issued by the respondent 1. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that Sri Shivayogiswamy Memorial Education Society is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The petitioner claims to have been elected as a President of the said Society in the election held on 5-1-2000. He has been filing the audited accounts before the District Registrar of Societies, Gulbarga. For the year 2007-08, the petitioner filed the audited accounts along with the list of members of the Governing Council of the Society along with a D.D. for Rs. 100/- towards the prescribed fee. The District Registrar of Societies has also issued the receipt, dated 29-7-2008 (Annexure-D). On 13-10-2008 the first respondent issued an endorsement which states that the renewal certificate issued by the respondent 1 on 29-7-2008 is cancelled, as the same was obtained by misrepresenting the facts to the department. The endorsement further states that the Civil Court has passed the decree declaring the respondents 2 and 3 as the General Secretary and President of the Society. It further states that the petitioner has filed R.A. No. 94 of 2005 against the said decree. The respondent 2 has filed the necessary documents with the respondent 1 in this regard. The petitioner has not informed the pendency of the dispute in the Court. 3. It is this endorsement, which is challenged by the petitioner. Sri Jambayyaswamy S. Hiremath, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent 1 did not put the petitioner on notice while cancelling the renewal certificate issued earlier. He submits that the respondent 2 has been supplying incorrect information to the respondent 1 only to harass the petitioner. The learned Counsel submits that even as per the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 138 of 1995 the declaration is given as per the general body meeting held on 19-6-1995. Much water has flown since then. At the pressing insistence of the respondent 2, elections were held on 5-1-2000. The respondent 2 had not participated in the said election. The respondents 2 and 3 cannot claim to be the General Secretary and President of the Society on permanent basis. 4. Much water has flown since then. At the pressing insistence of the respondent 2, elections were held on 5-1-2000. The respondent 2 had not participated in the said election. The respondents 2 and 3 cannot claim to be the General Secretary and President of the Society on permanent basis. 4. Sri Shivalingaswamy, the second respondent party-in-person submits that this petition has become infructuous, as the renewal cancelled is only for the year 2008-09, which period has already expired. He also submits that the petitioner has already resigned from the office of the president ship on 19-6-1995. He denies the very holding of election in 2000, as the respondents 2 and 3 have had no notice whatsoever of the elections. He submits that as the petitioner has obtained the interim order by suppressing the material facts, he is not entitled to succeed in this petition. In support of his submissions he has relied on the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Sailesh Kumar Rusia v State of Uttar Pracksh1. 5. The Government Pleader, Sri Mallikarjun Sahukar, appearing for the respondent 1 submits that as the impugned endorsement does not determine the rights of any party, it requires no affirmation or reversal. In support of his submissions, he has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.P. Aboobaker Musaliar v District Registrar (G) Kozhikode and Others2, wherein it is held that the District Registrar does not adjudicate any dispute between the parties; his order is not final. If any party is aggrieved by the District Registrar's order, it is open to him to establish his claim in a Competent Court or forum. 6. This petition involves the disputed questions of facts. Whether the elections have taken place on 5-1-2000, whether the petitioner has resigned from the office of the President of the Society, who represents the Society are required to be considered by a Competent Civil Court on scrutinising the oral and documentary records to be placed on its record. The audited accounts filed by the petitioner would not become final either by their acceptance or by their rejection. The requirement contained in Section 13 is only for filing with the Registrar, a list of the names, addresses and occupations of the governing body and a copy of the balance sheet and income and expenditure account. The audited accounts filed by the petitioner would not become final either by their acceptance or by their rejection. The requirement contained in Section 13 is only for filing with the Registrar, a list of the names, addresses and occupations of the governing body and a copy of the balance sheet and income and expenditure account. The Registrar shall only place on record what is filed. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Aboobaker, the decision taken by the Registrar does not become final and the party may take up the matter before a Competent Court for determining as to who are the members of a governing body. 7. In the result, I dispose of this petition without expressing any opinion on the tenability or otherwise of the impugned endorsement at Annexure-E and by reserving the liberty to the petitioner to file a duly constituted suit seeking appropriate reliefs. It is also the Court's anxiety that the petitioner's interest during the interregnum between today i.e., the date of disposal of the petition and the date of the I.A. for stay/temporary injunction etc., to be filed in the anticipated suit has to be safeguarded. The effect of the interim order granted by this Court on 21-1-2009 and continued thereafter shall be in force until the disposal of the I.A. for temporary injunction/stay in the anticipated suit or for a period of one month, whichever is earlier. No order as to costs.