Judgment : 1. This civil revision petition has been Article. 227 of the praying to set aside the docket order dated 20.9.2010 passed in I.A. No. 731 of 2010 in Original Suit No. 136 of 2009 by the Second Additional Sub Court, Madurai. 2. The revision petitioners as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No. 136 of 2009 on the file of the Court below for the reliefs of declaration and for permanent: injunction, wherein the present respondents have been shown as defendants. During pendency of the same, the revision petitioners as petitioners have filed I.A. No. 731 of 2010 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to pass an order of temporary injunction so as to restrain the respondent therein from conducting election of members of the executive committee. The Court-below on 20.9.2010 has simply adjourned the same since. Tr. O.P. No. 47 of 2010 is pending. Against the impugned order dated 20.9.2010 the present civil revision, petition has been filed. 3. During pendency of the same, the revision petitioners as petitioners have filed M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2010 on the file of this Court so as to get an order of temporary injunction and this Court has passed an order of temporary injunction on 27.09.2010. Against the order passed in M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2010 the respondents therein have preferred S.L.P. No. 28001 of 2010 on the file of the Honourable Supreme Court. 4. TheHonourable Supreme Court on 29.9.2010 has passed its order as follows: “ Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we are not inclined to keep this Special Leave Petition pending in this Court, having particular regard to the fact that the. same is directed against an interim order, and the prayer for injunction is still pending final decision before the High Court. ” Accordingly, we dispose of the Special Leave Petition, with leave, to the petitioners to hold the elections on 30.9.2010 if they are so inclined and the same will be subject to the final decision in the Revision Application, which is pending before the High Court. We also make it clear that the parties will be entitled to raise all the points, including the validity of the elections, which have, been taken before us, in the High Court during the. hearing of the. Revision Application. ” 5. We also make it clear that the parties will be entitled to raise all the points, including the validity of the elections, which have, been taken before us, in the High Court during the. hearing of the. Revision Application. ” 5. It has already been pointed out that the present revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 20.9.2010 passed in I.A. No. 731 of 2010 in Original Suit No. 136 of 2009. The Court below has simply adjourned I.A. No. 731 of 2010 on the. ground that Tr.O.P. No. 47 of 2010 is pending. Considering the fact that the present civil revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 20.9.2010 passed in I.A. No. 731 of 2010 in Original Suit No. 136 of 2009 and also considering that the Court below has simply adjourned the same on the ground of pendency of Tr. O.P. No. 47 of 2010, this Court is of the considered view that no executable order or adverse order has been passed against the revision petitioners. Since no adverse order or executable order has been passed in I.A. No. 731 of 2010, it is needless to say that the present civil revision petition is not legally maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed 6. As pointed out earlier, during pendency of this civil revision petition, M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2010 has been filed on the side of the civil revision petitioners so as to get an order of temporary injunction and this Court has allowed the same on 27.9.2010. Against the order passed by this Court, S.L.P. No. 28001 of 2010 has been filed on the file of the Honourable Apex Court. The Honourable Apex Court has permitted the petitioners therein to conduct election as scheduled on 30.9.2010. Further, the Honourable Apex Court has held that it is open to both parties to raise all points-including validity of election. Under the said circumstances, it is needless to say that even though no prayer has been sought for in the present civil revision petition with regard to the election which has been conducted on 30.9.2010, this Court is having power to decide the validity of the. impugned election. 7. Under the said circumstances, it is needless to say that even though no prayer has been sought for in the present civil revision petition with regard to the election which has been conducted on 30.9.2010, this Court is having power to decide the validity of the. impugned election. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has made a fatuous exercise by way of contending that in M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2010 an order of temporary injunction has been passed by this Court on 27.9.2010 and subsequently on 28.9.2010, a paper publication has been made, wherein it has been mentioned that due to passing of interim injunction by this Court, the election scheduled to be held on 30.9.2010 has been adjourned sine die and as per Section 171(1) of the Companies Act, 21 days notice is mandatory and the same has not been followed prior to conducting the impugned election and therefore, the impugned election dated 30.9.2010 is totally illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. 8. In order to controvert the contention urged on the side of the revision petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has also equally contended that the revision petitioners have, already been expelled from the first respondent and they have, no locus standi to raise any objection with regard to impugned election held on 30.9.2010 and originally publication has been made with regard to election on 1.9.2010 and further as per the order passed by the Honourable Apex Court, the impugned election has been held as per by-laws on 30.9.2010 and therefore, the impugned election is nothing but valid and further, no relief has been sought for either in the present civil revision petition or in Original Suit No. 136 of 2009 so as to set aside the impugned election held on 30.9.2010 and therefore, the present civil revision petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. For considering the rival submissions made by either counsel, the Court has to look into the provision of Section 171(1) of Companies Act as well as the publication given on 28.9.2010 and also the order passed by the Honourable Apex Court. 10. Section 171(1) of the said Act reads as follows: “ A general body meeting of a company may be called by giving not less than twenty-one days ‘ notice in writing. ” 11. 10. Section 171(1) of the said Act reads as follows: “ A general body meeting of a company may be called by giving not less than twenty-one days ‘ notice in writing. ” 11. From the close reading of the said provision, it is made clear that a general meeting of a company has to be convened after giving prior notice, not less than 21 days. 12. Article 19 of the by-laws of the first respondent speaks like thus: The election of members of the Executive Committee and the election of Office-Bearers of the Chamber shall be conducted in accordance with the election rules in Annexure “ A ” . The election of members of the Executive Committee shall be held at the Annual General Meeting, on the date fixed by the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee shall also fix the last date and time for filing of Nominations for the Election to the Executive Committee, and date and time of withdrawal. 13. It is seen from the records that prior to passing of interim injunction order in M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2010, necessary arrangements have been made so as to conduct the impugned election on 30.9.2010. Of course, it is true that after passing of interim injunction order in M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2010 by this Court, a publication has been issued on 28.9.2010 stating that in view of the order passed by this Court the election to be held on 30.9.2010 has been adjourned sine die. But at the same time, the Honourable Apex Court has passed its order in S.L.P. No. 28001 of 2010 on 29.9.2010 wherein necessary permission has been accorded to the petitioners therein to conduct the election in question. Further, the notification for the impugned election has been given on 1.9.2010. Therefore, it is very clear that as per Section 171(1) of Companies Act, prior notice has been given on 1.9.2010 and subsequently a publication has been made on 28.9.2010 in view of the Interim order passed by this Court and thereafter as per the direction given by the Honourable Apex Court, the election in question has been conducted on 30.9.2010. 14. 14. Considering the fact that with regard to Impugned election prior notice has been given on 1.9.2010 and also considering the specific permission accorded by the Honourable Apex Court so as to conduct the election in question, it is needless to say that the election in question has been properly conducted and no infirmities nor illegalities can be attached to it. 15. The maincontention of the revision petitioners is that since a paper publication has been issued on 28.9.2010 and since conducting of election to be held on 30.9.2010 has been adjourned sine die the period mentioned in Section 171(1) of the Companies Act is totally lacking in the present case. 16. Even at the risk of jarring repetition the Court would like to point out that with regard to impugned election, prior notice has been given on 1.9.2010 and in M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2010, this Court has passed an order of temporary injunction on 27.9.2010 and due to that, the paper publication has been made on 28.9.2010, But however, the Honourable Apex Court has accorded necessary permission to the petitioner in S.L.P. No. 28001 of 2001 to conduct election as scheduled. Therefore, viewing from any angle, no blemish could be attached to the impugned election held on 30.9.2010. 17. As pointed out earlier, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has also contended that since no relief has been sought for either in the present civil revision petition or in Original Suit No. 136 of 2009 with regard to election, the same cannot be agitated in the present civil revision petition and further, the Court is totally incompetent to grant a relief which has not been sought for. 18. In support of his contention, he has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision in K.PM. Aboobucker v. K. Kunhamoo and Others AIR 1950 Madras 287 : (1958) 1 MLJ 303 , wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held that “ an interim relief is granted to a person on the footing that that person is prima facie entitled to the right on which is based the claim for the main relief as well as the interim relief. That relief is granted as an interim measure till the disposal of the suit in which is to be investigated the validity of the claim of right that has been put forward. That relief is granted as an interim measure till the disposal of the suit in which is to be investigated the validity of the claim of right that has been put forward. If no such claim has been put forward in the suit, it means that there can be no occasion for investigation of such a claim in the suit, there can be no justification for the grant of an interim relief which will just lapse on the termination of the suit, but which will leave the parties in the same position in which they were before the institution of the suit, in the course of which the interim relief was sought and obtained. That is not the scope of Order 39 Rule 1(a). ” 19. It is an admitted fact that no relief has been sought for either in the present civil revision petition or in Original Suit No. 136 of 2009 with regard to impugned election held on 30.9.2010. However, the Honourable Apex Court has given necessary permission to both parties to raise the validity of the election in the present civil revision petition. Under the said circumstances, the aforesaid contention urged on the side of the respondents cannot be accepted. 20. It has already been discussed and pointed out that no blemish could be attached to the impugned election held on 30.9.2010 and further it has already been pointed out that the present civil revision petition is not legally maintainable in view of the fact that no adverse or executable order has been passed against the revision petitioners and therefore, viewing from any angle, the present civil revision petition deserves to be dismissed. 21. In fine, this civil revision petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without cost. Connected Miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.