Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 08.12.2009 passed in I.A.No.923 of 2009 in A.S.No.74 of 2009 by the First Additional Sub Court, Erode, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus: (i) R7 and R8 herein filed the suit O.S.No.482 of 2004 seeking the following reliefs: "(a) To declare that the General body meeting and election to the General council, executive committee and office bearers of the 1st defendant Trust held on 24.05.2000 are not valid, illegal, arbitrary under law; (b) To grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants 3 to 15, 17 to 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 24.05.2000. (Amended as per order in I.A.No.752 of 2003 dated 28.07.2003) (c) To grant mandatory injunction directing to conduct a fresh election to the general council members, Executive committee members and the office bearers of the 1st defendant Trust as per Bye-law by appointing a Advocate commissioner or Registrar of Societies under Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act; and (d) For costs." (extracted as such) (ii) After contest, the trial Court decreed the suit and granted the following reliefs: TAMIL 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the respondents 1 to 6 herein, preferred appeal A.S.No.74 of 2009. They also filed I.A.No.923 of 2009 and sought for stay and the appellate Court granted stay, the operative portion of it would run thus: TAMIL 5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of stay granted by the appellate Court, this revision has been filed by the present revision petitioner who happened to be the original D3 in the suit. The sum and substance, the pith and marrow of the grounds as found set out in the revision would run thus: The effect of the order of the appellate Court is to virtually permit the office bearers whose election have been held invalid to continue in office and if such office bearers are allowed to carry on with the day to day administration, it would lead to chaos and confusion and total destabilisation of the Society. The appellate Court failed to take into account the significance attached to G.O.No.1021, but simply stayed its operation, and thereby prevented the Joint Director concerned to take over the administration and proceed with the management. The appellate Court has granted a larger relief beyond the scope of the appeal itself. The Commissioner as per the order of the trial Court commenced his work and that he also published the list of the members and in such a case, the order passed by the appellate Court would act adversely as against the interest of the members of the Society. Accordingly, the revision petitioner prays for setting aside the order of the appellate Court. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the grounds of revision would put forth and set forth his arguments, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus: The lower Court did not pass any order regarding interim administration of the Society, pending election to be conducted by the Advocate Commissioner. However, after the decree passed by the trial Court, the Director of Education took action and appointed the Joint Director Education to take over the administration. In such a case, if the order of the appellate Court is allowed to be operative, then the election could not be conducted by the Commissioner in a free and fair manner and there will be malpractices in the administration also. Accordingly, he prays for setting aside the order of the appellate Court. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for R1 to R6 herein would advance his arguments, the sum and substance of the same would run thus: The appellate Court in fact should have stayed the entire decree of the lower Court, but he has not chosen to do so. He allowed the election process to continue, for which as of now, the respondents 1 to 6 are also having no objection and in such a case, the appointment of the Joint Director by the Director was unjustified and that was why the appellants, namely R1 to R6 herein moved the appellate Court and got stay. Over and above that, a writ petition was also filed challenging the very appointment of the Joint Director and in the writ petition also stay was granted. Over and above that, a writ petition was also filed challenging the very appointment of the Joint Director and in the writ petition also stay was granted. All these would exemplify and demonstrate that the Director was not justified in interfering with the administration, while already the office bearers are looking after the administration properly. Once the elections are conducted legally, then the matters would get settled automatically and there would not be any necessity for the Director to intervene in the matter. Accordingly, he prays for the dismissal of the revision. 8. The learned counsel for R7 and R8, who are the plaintiffs, would submit that this Court could direct the appellate Court to give suitable direction to the Advocate Commissioner to see that the election is conducted in a free and fair manner so that the entire dispute would come to an end amicably and properly also. 9. The points for consideration are as to: (1) Whether the revision could be allowed on the grounds found displayed in the grounds of revision? (2) Whether the appellate Court was justified in granting stay in the manner it had granted in this case? 10. At first blush it appears as though the appellate Court exceeded its power in granting stay of the Joint Director taking over administration of the Society concerned as per the order of the Director by taking cognizance of what had happened subsequent to the passing of the decree by the trial Court in. Normally the appellate Court is expected to confine its focus to the decree passed by the trial Court. Subsequent to the passing of the trial Court, if any Governmental agency passed any order then it is for the aggrieved party to treat it as a separate cause of action and approach the appropriate forum for appropriate relief. However, in this case, since the subsequent order of the Director in appointing the Joint Director was after taking cognizance of the developments that occurred in the litigative process before the Court, the appellate Court in its wisdom though fit to interfere and felt that all along office bearers pendente lite were administering it and the same could continue despite the disposal of the case by the trial Court. As such, this is a discretionary power exercised by the appellate Court which is seized of the matter. As such, this is a discretionary power exercised by the appellate Court which is seized of the matter. I recollect the settled principle that the appellate Court is the last Court of facts and in its wisdom and discretion it thought fit to allow the all along existing office bearers to continue to remain in office, pending elections are conducted as per the lower Courts decree and it has also not granted any injunction to stop the conduct of election. As such, in this revision, I do not incline to interfere with such order of the stay granted by the appellate Court. However, I am constrained to point out that pending litigation ever since 2000, no order has been obtained from the Court for interim administration of the Society or the College under the Society and I am at a loss to understand as to how for nearly a decade the litigation prolonged without the parties obtaining necessary orders from the Court in that connection. Be that as it may, it is a fact that the parties of their own accord without getting any orders from the Court, conducted elections and the revision petitioner herein also was one of the office bearers of that elected body and in such a case, all of a sudden I do not incline to destabilise the same and interfere with the order of the appellate Court. However, in view of the conflicts that are going on in the Society concerned, I would like to pass order enabling the revision petitioner herein as well as the plaintiffs/R7 and R8 herein to have supervision, monitoring and right to gather information from the office bearers on the present administration and if they are having any grievance, they could petition the appellate Court and appellate Court after hearing both sides shall issue suitable directions as an interim measure and I also direct the appellate Court to dispose of the memo filed by the Advocate Commissioner seeking direction, after hearing all concerned by 31st July 2010. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.