Judgment :- 1. The appellant/plaintiff has filed in O.S.No.289 of 2010, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kuzhidurai, against the respondent along with an interlocutory application. The prayer in the suit was: (1) A decree for declaring that if any resolution was recorded by the defendant and send it form No.VII to the Registrar of Societies, Marthandem on 24.02.2010 and thereafter were null and void and against the by-law of the society; (2) A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from disrupting the functions of the plaintiff has secretary of the St.Jude's College, Thoothoor and from interfering the affairs of the administration of Latin Catholic Fishermen Educational Society and St.Jude's College, Thoothoor, in any manner and other relief. 2. The said case had been resisted by the defendants and after conducting trial dismissed the said suit. Against, the dismissal of the said suit the plaintiff as filed an appeal suit in A.S.No.3 of 2012, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kuzhidurai. The Plaintiff also filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.10 of 2002 for temporary injunction restraining the respondent and his men from disturbing the functions of the appellant as Secretary of St.Jude's College Thootoor and from interfering the affairs, of the administration of Latin Catholic Fishermen till the final disposal of the appeal. 3. The said interlocutory application had been resisted by he respondents/defendant after filing a counter statement. The learned Appellate Court Judge, after hearing the arguments of both sides learned counsels and on perusing the averments of the affidavit and counter statement filed by both parties and dismissal the said interlocutory application in I.A.No.10 of 2012, in A.S.No.3 of 2012. Against the dismissal of the said application the plaintiff/appellant has filed the above appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised the below mentioned grounds namely: "(1) The learned trial Judge as well as the Appellate Judge traversed beyond the scope of the suit and passed the order without appreciating the available evidence and the documents in the proper perspective; (2) The convening of the General body meeting and the election of the office bearers are governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and the Bye-law of the society. The documents referred by the learned trial Judge as well as the Appellate Judge are not in consonance to the societies Registration Act, as well as to the Bye-law of the society. But the learned trial Judge as well as the Appellate Judge mechanically referred those documents which do not have any legal sancity. (3) The learned trial Judge had come to the conclusion from Ex.P80-87 to arrive at the conclusion that the new office bearer were elected. Those documents except Ex.P.89 are self serving documents which do not have any legal building. Ex.P.89 is the Form-VI submitted to the Directorate of Collegiate Education under Rule 9(2) of the Private College Regulation Rules on the election of the appellant/plaintiff as a Secretary of St. Jude's College. Without even verifying the documents both the trial Judge as well as the Appellate Judge erred in relying the document in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff. (4) The General body meeting of the society can be convened only after 21 days notice as stipulated under the bye-law of the society and as contemplated under the societies Registration Act. The so called General body meeting relied by the trial Judge as well as the Appellate Judge is without any such notice as contemplated under the bye-law and the Societies Registration Act and therefore, it is void abintio. However, reliance had been made on the so called General body meeting in deciding the application in I.A.No.10 of 2012." 5. The injunction is sought for as against the respondent/defendant. The learned Appellate Judge who accepted the election of one Joseph Baskaran as the new secretary had indirectly accepted the non existence of the respondent/defendant in the society. While so the learned appellate Judge ought to have granted the relief as claimed for against the respondent/defendant. 6. The learned Appellate Judge failed to consider the fact that the interim order of status-quo was granted in favour of the plaintiff/appellant during the trial and was in force till the disposal of the suit. The interim order of status-quo granted during the trial was also confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court." 7. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the appellant claiming to be appointed to the post of Secretary of the College for a period of three years from 30.07.2009. The interim order of status-quo granted during the trial was also confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court." 7. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the appellant claiming to be appointed to the post of Secretary of the College for a period of three years from 30.07.2009. Not with standing the fact that he was removed from the post of Secretary as on 17.03.2002 and from the primary membership of the society as on 31.03.2012, the tenure of employment of the post of Secretary itself has expired on 29.07.2002. The learned counsel further pointed out that having regard to the fact that the tenure itself was over on 21.07.2012. The General body of the society was convened on 17.09.2012 and new office bearers were elected. That apart one reference Rev.Joseph Bhaskaran had been appointed as Secretary of the College by the Board of Directors with effect from 17.09.2012. 8. The learned counsel further submits that both parties have filed writ petitions before this Court the same were disposed of by referring the interim order granted in O.S.No.289 of 2010, subsequently, the suit was dismissed on merits. The present Secretary Rev.Joseph Bhaskaran has filed writ petition in W.P.No.2140 of 2012 as Secretary of St.Jude's College, Thoothoor, wherein an interim stay was granted, since there is a prima facie case on the side of the writ petitioner namely the present Secretary Rev.Joseph Bhaskaran. 9. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned order of the 1st Appellate Court directs the learned Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai, to dispose the appeal suit in A.S.No.3 of 2012, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. 10. In the result, the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the order and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.10 of 2012, in A.S.No.3 of 2012, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District, dated 20.06.2012, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.