Arun Tandon, J. Heard Sri B.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.R. Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Petitioner, before this Court, has set up an election of the Committee of Management of Balika Vidyalaya Society Mal Road, Kanpur dated 20th November, 2011. Papers pertaining to the elected office bearers were transmitted to the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur Division, Kanpur ( herein after referred to as the 'Deputy Registrar') for the list being registered under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1860'). Objections were filed to the alleged elections. After hearing the parties, the Deputy Registrar vide order dated 11th April, 2012 held that the term of earlier elected office bearers had expired, they had become time barred and therefore, the elections now held were illegal. He proceeded to hold that fresh elections are to be held under Section 25 ( 2) of the Act, 1860. A direction has been issued to the contesting parties to supply the list of members of the general body to the office of the Deputy Registrar so that fresh elections may be held at the earliest. This order of the Deputy Registrar has admittedly been challenged by the petitioner by means of Civil Suit No. 977 of 2012. Along with the plaint, petitioner has also made a application for temporary injunction. The injunction prayed for, amongst others is for a restrain being placed upon the defendants from interfering in the working of the petitioner Committee of Management. Till date no temporary injunction has been granted and only notice has been issued to the defendants, as is apparent from the document enclosed as Annexure-2 to the present writ petition. The Deputy Registrar as a consequence to the order passed on 11th April, 2012 has published a notice for holding of fresh elections of the society and has authorized the Tehsildar, Sadar to act as the election officer. It is against this order of the Deputy Registrar dated 20th November, 2012 that the present writ petition has been filed. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the notice dated 5th February, 2013 published by the election officer in the matter of elections of the office bearers. It is against this order of the Deputy Registrar dated 20th November, 2012 that the present writ petition has been filed. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the notice dated 5th February, 2013 published by the election officer in the matter of elections of the office bearers. Entire case pleaded by Sri B.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner is that since earlier elections had already taken place in 2011, the results whereof were notified to the Deputy Registrar and further since petitioner has already filed a civil suit wherein an temporary injunction application is pending, the Registrar cannot proceed to hold any fresh elections under Section 25( 2) of the Act, 1860. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are wholly misconceived. This writ petition is an abuse of process of the Court. It has to be dismissed with exceptional cost for the following reasons: Order of the Deputy Registrar holding that the elections set up by the petitioner dated 20th November, 2011 as illegal and that fresh elections are required to be held under Section 25 ( 2) of Act, 1860 dated 11th April, 2012 stands on record as on date. In the civil suit filed by the petitioner no injunction has been granted restraining consequential action in terms of the order dated 11th April, 2012. Petitioner has not challenged the order dated 11th April, 2012 before this Court nor he could have challenged inasmuch as against the same order, he has already filed a civil suit. What logically follows is that once the main order exists on record, consequential action has to be taken by the authorities and mere pendency of the civil suit will not amount to stay of further action required to be taken under the order dated 11th April, 2012. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the Case of Government of Maharastra vs. Deokar's Distillery; ( 2003) SCC 669 and Barkat Ali versus Badri Narain; AIR 2008 SC 1272 and P. Chithranja Menon versus A. Balakrishnan; AIR 1977 SC 1720 , has held that if the basic order is not under challenge, consequential order cannot be subject to challenge. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the Case of Government of Maharastra vs. Deokar's Distillery; ( 2003) SCC 669 and Barkat Ali versus Badri Narain; AIR 2008 SC 1272 and P. Chithranja Menon versus A. Balakrishnan; AIR 1977 SC 1720 , has held that if the basic order is not under challenge, consequential order cannot be subject to challenge. Even otherwise, this Court may record that petitioner having failed to obtain any injunction in the civil suit cannot be permitted to misuse the process of the writ jurisdiction for the same purpose and to obtain an order from this Court for restraining with the further logical action in terms of the order dated 11th April, 2012. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/-. This cost shall be deposited by the petitioner within one month from today with the Registrar General of this Court, by bank draft failing which it shall be recovered from the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar as per the law applicable. The money so collected shall be transmitted to the High Court Bar Association, Allahabad for purchase of books.