Judgment : The short facts of the case are as follows:- The first and second respondent herein/plaintiffs have filed a civil suit in O.S.No.152 of 2012 along with an interlocutory application in I.A.No.678 of 2012 against the revision petitioners herein/defendants on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin for injunction, declaration, stating that the first respondent's association, namely, Thoothukudi Vadadhisai Hindu Nadar Mahamai Dharma Karapettai Paripalana Sangam, which has been registered under the Societies Act and the registered No.4 of 1919. This said association consisting of more than 500 members. To be registered as a member in the said association there are bye-laws constituted. Under the association, educational institutions and properties are there. 2. As per the bye-laws of the association the officer bearers and committee members will be elected once in 3 years. The election had been conducted in a democratic manner. As per the sub-rule 10(d) the elected office bearers will continue for two terms, as such the second respondent/second defendant, namely, Mr.Vinayagamoorthy had been elected as Deputy Secretary in the year 1996. Again he has been elected in the year 1999. Further he had been elected in the year 2002 as Secretary of the association and again, he had been elected in the year 2005 and 2008. Thereafter, without the formal conducting of election, he is continuing in the same post. Further the second defendant was vice-president in the year 1993 and in the year 2008. The other office bearers functioning as stooges. Further, the second and third defendants are removing the members from the society with mala fide intention besides, they instigated other members of the society to file cases, therefore, the formal election was deferred. Further, as per bye-law, the second and third defendants are continuing as office bearers of the association for more than two consecutive periods which breaches sub-rules 10(d) of the association. 3. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed a supplementary application along with the suit for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner as enquiry officer for selecting the qualified members and in deleting out the disqualified members and admit new members as per the norms laid down by the association. 4. The first defendant had filed counter statement and resisted the interlocutory application. The first defendant submits that the plaintiffs have given false statements and denied the averments of the plaintiffs. 4. The first defendant had filed counter statement and resisted the interlocutory application. The first defendant submits that the plaintiffs have given false statements and denied the averments of the plaintiffs. The first defendant further submits that the second plaintiff was functioning as office bearer when a General Body Meeting was conducted on 11.07.1999 and passed resolutions. The 7th resolution was to remove the 10(d) of the association bye-laws, the said resolution was passed unanimous. The first plaintiff had participated in the General Body Meeting and he had signed in the minutes book as serial No.130. The second plaintiff had also signed in the minute book as serial No.2 and he had presided at the said meeting and also signed the minutes book at the end of the meeting. Again the General Body Meeting was conducted on 18.06.2000 for the first defendant's association when the second plaintiff, namely, Mr.Mahendran was vice president and he presided over the meeting. In the said meeting the previous meeting resolution was read over and accordingly, recorded. Thereafter, the General Body Meeting resolutions and accounts have been submitted to the District Registrar on 21.06.2000. Thereafter, the District Registrar (Society) had sent copy of the show-cause notice to the Government Secretary though the Inspector General of Registration and Secretary of the first defendant's association regarding annual report of the association. The District Registrar (Society) had accepted the amendment of the bye-laws, the said amendment is presently in force for over 12 years. The plaintiffs, members of the society, who have participated in the resolution and also presided over the general body meeting dated 11.07.1999 and the said resolution is valid and in force. Further, the byelaw 10(d) had already been removed. 5. The first defendant further submits that the election of the first defendant's association is to be conducted by an Advocate Commissioner, the said order is being challenged by a member of the association, namely, Mr.Somu, who filed a writ petition in W.P.No.4607 of 2012 which is pending before this Court. The similar issue i.e., an appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is pending before the Madurai Bench, as such the interlocutory application in I.A.No.678 of 2012 is not maintainable since the same relief is sought by the plaintiffs before the trial court which is not maintainable. The similar issue i.e., an appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is pending before the Madurai Bench, as such the interlocutory application in I.A.No.678 of 2012 is not maintainable since the same relief is sought by the plaintiffs before the trial court which is not maintainable. Further, as per bye-laws of the association, the office bearers of the association have to sign in the membership form. The Subscription of the membership shall be paid on or before 15th May allowing the members for participation., as such, the first defendant association prayed before the trial Court to dismiss the interlocutory application. 6. The second defendant, namely, Mr.Vinayagamoorthy has filed the counter statement and refuted the interlocutory application. The respondent further submits that the association General Body Meeting was conducted on 11.07.1999, in which, both the plaintiffs had participated and a resolution was passed, in that resolution the bye-law 10 (d) had been removed. In the said resolution, both the plaintiffs have duly signed, subsequently, the second plaintiff presided over the General Body Meeting on 18.06.2000 and on that day the earlier resolution passed on 11.07.1999 had been affirmed. Subsequently, on 21.06.2000 the annual statement and the minutes of the meetings particulars was sent to the District Registrar (Society). Further, the District Registrar had sought an explanation on 05.10.2000 for non-submission of the annual accounts of the society. Further, the District Registrar had accepted the amendment of the bye-law 10(d) and the said amendment is currently in force. This respondent further submits that he is doing social service following in the footsteps of his father with the society. Therefore, the respondent is continuing as secretary of the association for the third time. Further, the Principal District Judge, Tuticorin had passed an order stating that regarding disqualifying membership issue after sorting out by the General Body of the Association then the elections could be decided. As such, the membership forms are being received and such membership shall be recognized by the committee. Without conducting a proper enquiry on the disqualified members, the election cannot be conducted. Further, one Santhanaraj had filed O.S.No.470 of 2008 and one Chockalingam had filed O.S.No.409 of 2001 and another O.S.No.458 of 2011 have been filed for the similar issues. The respondent further submits that regarding the society elections the general body has to decide and the court has no jurisdiction to decide on the society election. Further, one Santhanaraj had filed O.S.No.470 of 2008 and one Chockalingam had filed O.S.No.409 of 2001 and another O.S.No.458 of 2011 have been filed for the similar issues. The respondent further submits that regarding the society elections the general body has to decide and the court has no jurisdiction to decide on the society election. As such, the second defendant requested the Trial Court to dismiss the said interlocutory application. 7. The third defendant had filed a counter statement and adopted the counter statement filed by the first and second defendants. The respondent further submitted that the first defendant's Association is functioning in a proper manner as per the sub-rule of the association, further the present office bearers are running the association without irregularities whatsoever, further the officer bearers are functioning on the welfare of the first defendant's association. The bye-law 10(d) had already been removed. Therefore, the present suit and connected interlocutory application are not maintainable. The plaintiffs have not raised any objections for the past 12 years and now they have filed the said suit in order to disturb the association's welfare. Therefore, the case has been filed. 8. On considering the averments of all the parties and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsels, the learned Sub-Judge, Tuticorin had observed that both parties are willing to maintain the list of the qualified members of the association, but the serious allegation of the plaintiffs are that the defendants are admitting bogus members in the first defendant's association. Under the circumstances, the learned Judge has appointed one Mr.P.Ganapathysubramaniam as Advocate Commissioner to prepare the list of eligible members and also remove the bogus members and admit new eligible members as per the bye-laws of the association. 9. Aggrieved by the said order, the above revision filed by the defendants herein. The highly competent counsel vehemently argued that the plaintiffs have filed the suit along with interlocutory application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner on the basis of the bye-law of the first defendant's association which had ceased to be in the existence long before on 11.07.1999 i.e., bye-law No.10(d), as such, the suit is not maintainable. The learned Judge had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to regularize the list of the members of the association which is against the bye-laws of the society. The society alone is the competent authority to admit particular eligible persons as its members. The learned Judge had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to regularize the list of the members of the association which is against the bye-laws of the society. The society alone is the competent authority to admit particular eligible persons as its members. The Advocate is not a judicial authority or a partial judicial authority to scrutinize the list of members of the society and determine the legitimate and illegitimate members in the society. The learned Judge had finalized out of his jurisdiction and granted the relief which had not been sought by the plaintiffs. 10. The learned counsel further submits that on 17.04.2013 one more interim order was passed giving suggestions regarding the preparation of voters list. The operative portion of the order is as follows:- "(i) The committee of seven persons who were entrusted with the job of collecting application forms as per the resolution passed in the General Body Meeting held on 15.04.2012, shall receive applications from all persons who want to become members of the society, provided the applications are received on or before 08.05.2013. (ii) After collecting the applications and after verifying the list of existing members, the committee of seven members is directed to publish a tentative list in the society office and exhibit the same in the notice board on or before 24.05.2013. (iii) Any person who has got any objection about his non inclusion or improper inclusion of any person as a member, can file objection to the voters list on or before 05.06.2013 to the committee aforesaid and the objections on the tentative voters list prepared by the committee of seven members, shall be forwarded to the District Registrar of Societies, Tuticorin, and the District Registrar is directed to consider the objections and prepare the final list of voters on or before 19.06.2013. Thereafter, the parties can approach the Court for fixing the date for holding of the elections. (iv) The members are entitled to renew their subscription by making direct payment after establishing their identity" 11. The said order published in the office notice board of the society as well as in the Tamil daily newspaper, namely, Dinamalar, dated 29.04.2013. As per this Court order, the 7 members committee received applications till 08.05.2013 and published a tentative voters list in the society office notice board on 23.05.2013. The said order published in the office notice board of the society as well as in the Tamil daily newspaper, namely, Dinamalar, dated 29.04.2013. As per this Court order, the 7 members committee received applications till 08.05.2013 and published a tentative voters list in the society office notice board on 23.05.2013. Thereafter, the said committee received objections on the tentative voters list till 05.06.2013 and submitted the same to the society with its report on 10.06.2013. Now the first defendant's society forwarded the tentative voters list along with the objections and the report of the 7 members committee to the Registrar, Tuticorin, on 11.06.2013, the District Registrar after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties and considering all the objections, the report of the 7 members committee and the tentative voters list, finalized the final voters list in these proceedings, dated 18.06.2013. Hence, the highly competent counsel Mr.J.Shabujose entreats the court to fix a date for conducting election as directed by this Court in the interim order dated 17.04.2013. 12. The learned counsel further submits that the previous triennium of the officer came to an end on 30.06.2011. Further, 21 days advance notice calling for general body meeting for electing officers for the next triennium. Under these circumstances, one of the members of the society has filed a suit restraining the defendants from passing any resolution, the said suit has been filed on the file of Principal District Munsif, Tuticorin, the learned Judge had granted interim injunction in I.A.No.1443 of 2011 in O.S.No.434 of 2011, preventing the society from conducting the election. Further, by virtue of byelaw 10(d) of the society the previous office bearers continued. The bye-law 10(d) which seems to be in existence after passing a resolution on 11.07.1999, in which both the plaintiffs had participated. Therefore, the learned counsel prays to set aside the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. 13. The learned counsel had cited the below mentioned citation:- (i) Zoroastrian Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., and another vs. District Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Urban) and others reported in (2005)5 SCC 632 . A. Constitution of India - Arts. Therefore, the learned counsel prays to set aside the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. 13. The learned counsel had cited the below mentioned citation:- (i) Zoroastrian Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., and another vs. District Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Urban) and others reported in (2005)5 SCC 632 . A. Constitution of India - Arts. 19(1)(c), 14, 15(2) and 29(1) -Right to form associations excluding others on basis of religion, sex, persuasion or mode of life - Right of minorities to conserve their culture - DamyantiNaranga case, (1971)1 SCC 678 , holding that right to form associations necessarily implied right to keep others out, limited, following Daman Singh, (1985)2 SCC 670 and C.O.D. Chheoki Employees, (1997)3 SCC 681 Held, there can be no objection to statutory interference with the composition or functioning of associations which are created, controlled and governed by statute Hence legislative provisions can be introduced in the statutes concerned for eliminating qualifications for membership based on sex, religion, persuasion or mode of life-However, further held, so long as there is no legislative intervention of such nature, it is not open to the court or authorities purportedly acting under the statute concerned to coin a theory that a particular approved bye-law of a registered cooperative society is not desirable and would be opposed to public policy as indicated by the Constitution Hence, formation of associations confined to persons of particular persuasion, belief, trade, way of life or religion is permissible until such amendments are made in the relevant statutes - Hence, Bye-law 7 of appellant Society, restricting membership thereto to Parsi community only, upheld -Relevance of Constitutional goal of doing away with discrimination based on religion or sex, inherent abhorrence to and place of exclusionist associations based on sex or religion etc. in secular India, history and objects of cooperative movement, theory of "area of operation" of cooperative societies, discussed - Clubs, Societies and Associations - Membership -Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (10 of 1962) - Ss.4, 6, 12, 23 and 24 -Cooperative Societies Act, 1912- S.4- Judicial activism - Limits of. (ii) Surya Dev Raj vs. Ramchander Rai and others reported in (2003)6 SCC 675 . "A. Constitution of India - Arts. (ii) Surya Dev Raj vs. Ramchander Rai and others reported in (2003)6 SCC 675 . "A. Constitution of India - Arts. 226 & 227 -Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.115(1) proviso (after amendment by Act 46 of 1999 w.e.f. 1.7.2002) -Effect of the amendment on jurisdiction of High Court under Arts.226 & 227 -Held, the amendment cannot and does not in any manner affect the said jurisdiction under Arts. 226 and 227 - Being part of the basic structure it cannot be tampered, not even by a constitutional amendment, much less by an Act of legislature - Party can therefore seek such writ of certiorari or invoke power of superintendence of High Court -Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 (46 of 1999), S.12." 14. The learned counsel for the first and second respondents vehemently argued that the Registrar has prepared revised list of the voters in the society and publishing the valid voters list on 18.06.2013, further the trial Court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to conduct fair election of the society as per the bye-laws once in three years. This was not conducted within time and as per bye-laws. With mala fide intention the revision petitioner has instigated the members of the society to file suits in order to defer the society elections. As per bye-law 10(d) the revision petitioners have no locus standi to contest in the election as office bearers since they had enjoyed the office bearers post for two consecutive periods. The resolution dated 11.07.1999 has not materialized since the amendment had not been carried out before the District Registrar of the Society. Therefore, the alleged resolution for amending the bye-law 10(d) is not sustainable under law since the legal part formalities had not been exercised. The learned Trial Court Judge had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to conduct an election as per bye-law after giving suitable directions which is maintainable and not against the bye-laws of the association neither against the welfare of the society. The impugned order of the trial Court is that for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to conduct the election. This order will not be prejudiced to the revision petitioners herein or any of the members of the society. further, in order to safeguard the society's valuable properties consisting of several educational institutions and the movable and immovable properties of the society. This order will not be prejudiced to the revision petitioners herein or any of the members of the society. further, in order to safeguard the society's valuable properties consisting of several educational institutions and the movable and immovable properties of the society. If any dispute should arise over the society among the members regarding their rights the civil court is the competent authority to sort out the remedies and render justice. The learned counsel for the first and second respondents further submit that the learned Advocate Commissioner Mr.P.Ganapathysubramaniam has not been functioning as per the trial Court order after the receipt of the Commissioner's warrant, as such, it is tantamount to supporting the defendants. 15. The learned counsel for the third respondent had filed impleading petition in M.P (MD)No.2 of 2013 in C.R.P.No.1839 of 2012 the same has been allowed on 20.08.2013. The learned counsel submits that the third respondent is the necessary party. As per bye-laws which provide that for registering a membership in the first defendant's society, he must be Vadathisai Hindu Nadar not below the age of 25 years doing a business and who is an literate. As such, the third respondent is a qualified and eligible member of the association and he has paid the subscription to the society and he had been in the former secretary of the association. Further, the first defendant's society is dealing vast extent of properties at many places. Therefore, in order to bring the properties under their control, therefore, unqualified members tried to become members of the society illegally particularly they are not belonging to vadathisai Hindu Nadar. Therefore, some persons are adopting illegal methods to become members of the society. 16. Further, the third respondent herein has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.4607 of 2002 before this Court, directing the District Registrar of Societies, Tuticorin to direct the second respondent to conduct the election for the office bearers of the society after deleting Rule 7B of the bye-law of the society. The said writ petition is pending as on date. Under the circumstances, the first and second respondents have filed O.S.No.152 of 2012, on the file of Sub-Judge, Tuticorin against the revision petitioners herein stating that they are holding secretary and vice president post as illegal. Further, on 17.04.2013, this Hon'ble Court passed an order after obtaining consent from the parties. The said writ petition is pending as on date. Under the circumstances, the first and second respondents have filed O.S.No.152 of 2012, on the file of Sub-Judge, Tuticorin against the revision petitioners herein stating that they are holding secretary and vice president post as illegal. Further, on 17.04.2013, this Hon'ble Court passed an order after obtaining consent from the parties. The concerns of both parties is indicative of a collusion between one and another. The finalizing of list of members with the existing bye-laws which is under challenge by the writ petition. Both the parties are suppressing the writ proceedings. Further, the suit filed by the plaintiffs before the trial Court and the above revision filed by the defendants are one and the same writ proceedings. 17. From the above discussions, this Court is of the view:- (1) As per the first defendant's society bye-laws the election to be conducted once in three years, but this was not done after 30.06.2011, therefore, the election of the society is of paramount importance. (2) The Trial Court has passed impugned order in I.A.No.678 of 2012 in O.S.No.152 of 2012, dated 31.07.2012 by the learned Sub-Judge, Tuticorin, is an appropriate order i.e., giving direction to the learned Advocate Commissioner to conduct the election for the society as per bye-laws and after deleting illegible members from the society and include eligible members of the society after giving an opportunity and to contest the election for the society. This order is found to be suitable to proceed with since the said impugned order will not be prejudiced to either parties. (3) This Court's further view that the learned Advocates form the second tier of the judiciary and their profession is a noble one, on behalf of the judicial officer, the Court appointing advocates as commissioner is to act on behalf of them to carry out certain legal-works, as such, the trial Court has appointed the Advocate Commissioner to contest the election for the society in a fair manner by rectifying certain irregularities of the society. This order has been passed on merits after considering the averments of the parties and the legal submissions made by the learned counsels, as such, the impugned order is sustainable under law. (4) All the parties herein are willing to contest the society election in a fair manner as per the bye-laws and especially once in three years. This order has been passed on merits after considering the averments of the parties and the legal submissions made by the learned counsels, as such, the impugned order is sustainable under law. (4) All the parties herein are willing to contest the society election in a fair manner as per the bye-laws and especially once in three years. Therefore, if the election conducted by the learned Advocate Commissioner as per the Trial Court order, then no one will be prejudiced and it will safeguard the welfare of the society. The second interim order passed on 17.04.2013 by this Court after obtaining consent from both parties. However, the earlier impugned order passed in I.A.No.678 of 2012 in O.S.No.152 of 2012, dated 31.07.2012, is not found to be invalid or illegal. Therefore, the impugned order of the Trial Court does not find any discrepancy or infirmities or short coming or irregularities or illegalities or lapses whatsoever. (5) As per the Court's direction dated 17.04.2013, the District Registrar has scrutinized the voters list and the same has been published on the notice board at the notice board of the Association. 127 members have submitted their applications to enroll their membership, these applications were rejected, since no office bears proposed and no member of the Society seconded it as per the bye-laws of the Association. This Court's view at present is that no office bearers are functioning since their three years terms were over. Therefore, 127 membership applications shall be admitted for membership of the society. (6) This Hon'ble Court had not granted any interim order in the writ petition in W.P(MD) No.4607 of 2012 filed by the third respondent herein to prevent the conducting of the election for the society. Therefore, the impugned order of the trial Court shall not be interfered with. 18. The learned counsel for the first and second respondents has strongly raised objection about the learned Advocate Commissioner Mr. P.Ganapathysubramaniam that he has not acted upon the impugned order of the trial Court after receipts of the warrant, in order to support the defendants. As such this court directs the learned Sub-Judge, Tuticorin to appoint one of the senior Advocates of the Bar as Advocate Commissioner to take on the responsibility to conduct the election instead of Mr. P.Ganapathysubramaniam. 19. As such this court directs the learned Sub-Judge, Tuticorin to appoint one of the senior Advocates of the Bar as Advocate Commissioner to take on the responsibility to conduct the election instead of Mr. P.Ganapathysubramaniam. 19. On verifying the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on all sides, and on scrutinizing the impugned order of the Trial Court and the view mentioned above, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the impugned order and it is found to be suitable to proceed with. After appointing a fresh Commissioner and after including the 127 members in the first respondent's society and carrying out the election of the society. 20. In the result, the above civil revision petition is disposed of with the above mentioned directions. Consequently, this Courts 2nd interim direction dated 17.04.2013 need not be complied with. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.