JUDGMENT 1. Heard Sri G.C. Verma, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri M.B. Singh, leaned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. This Special Appeal has been filed questioning the refusal to exercise discretion in favour of the appellants to grant an interim relief as prayed for by the impugned order dated 7.4.2016 on the ground that the learned Single has not appreciated the issue of jurisdiction involved in the controversy and therefore, the observation that the elections shall be held subject to final decision of the writ petition, was not the appropriate relief. 3. A preliminary objection has been taken by the learned Standing Counsel to the maintainability of the Appeal contending that the Special Appeal is not maintainable against the impugned order. On this issue, the matter is no longer res integra in view of the Full Decision of our Court in the case of Ashutosh Shrotriya and others v. Vice-Chancellor, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University and others [ (2015) 4 UPLBEC 2673 Para 34 (part), Para 36 (part) and para 37] which are extracted hereunder: - "34. ... The judgment in Ghisai Ram Krishak Vidyalaya Samiti cannot be read as taking away the discretion of the appellate Court and its unquestioned jurisdiction to enquire into the maintainability of an appeal on the tests which have been laid down by the Supreme Court. "36. ... If such a submission is urged, it must be recorded and dealt with however briefly to obviate a grievance that an application for ad interim relief was pressed but not dealt with. A purely procedural direction of calling for a counter affidavit and rejoinder would not be amenable to a special appeal since it decides no rights and does not affect the vital and substantive rights of parties. However, the appellate Court has the unquestioned jurisdiction to decide whether the direction is of a procedural nature against which a special appeal is not maintainable or whether the interlocutory order decides matters of moment or affects vital and valuable rights of parties and works serious injustice to the party concerned. However, the appellate Court has the unquestioned jurisdiction to decide whether the direction is of a procedural nature against which a special appeal is not maintainable or whether the interlocutory order decides matters of moment or affects vital and valuable rights of parties and works serious injustice to the party concerned. Where the Division Bench in a special appeal is of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge is not just a procedural direction but would result in a grave detriment to substantive rights of an irreversible nature, the jurisdiction of the Court is wide enough to intervene at the behest of an aggrieved litigant. The Rules of Court are in aid of justice. We, therefore, affirm the principle that a purely processual order of the nature upon which the reference is made would not be amenable to a special appeal not being a judgment. The Division Bench will have to decide in the facts of each case, the nature of the order passed by a Single Judge while determining whether the appeal is maintainable." "37. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we answer the question of law referred to the full Bench by holding that, an order of a learned Single Judge upon a petition under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution only calling for counter and rejoinder affidavits is merely a procedural order in aid of the progression of the case. An order of this nature which is purely of a procedural nature in aid of the progression of the case and to enable the Court to form a considered view after a counter affidavit and a rejoinder are filed would not be amenable to a special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5. Such an order does not decide anything nor does it have the trappings of finality. If a party to the proceedings seeks to press an application for ad interim relief of a protective nature even before a counter affidavit is filed, on the ground that a situation of irretrievable injustice may result or that its substantive rights would be adversely affected in the meantime, such an argument must be addressed before the Single Judge. If such an argument is urged, it should be dealt with however briefly, consistent with the stage of the case, by the Single Judge. If such an argument is urged, it should be dealt with however briefly, consistent with the stage of the case, by the Single Judge. It is for the Division Bench hearing the special appeal to consider whether the order decides matters of moment or is of such a nature that would affect the vital and valuable rights of the parties and causes serious injustice to the concerned party." 4. Applying the said principles, since the issue of jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar to pass the impugned orders was clearly involved, and the same was not dealt with, the impugned judgment reflects on the substantive rights of the appellant and hence the appeal would be maintainable. The appellants have claimed to have held elections on 26.6.15 that are stated to be valid and it's term has not yet expired. The Deputy Registrar could not have annulled the elections. Accordingly, the preliminary objection raised by the Standing Counsel is overruled. 5. Sri M. B. Singh, learned counsel for the contesting respondent has however urged that the issue of jurisdiction does not arise on the facts of the present case inasmuch as the appellants failed to establish any genuine or valid elections having been held after 2008 and therefore, the Deputy Registrar was justified in drawing this conclusion and inference that the Committee of Management had become defunct. In such circumstances, he has rightly assumed the authority to hold fresh elections under Sub-Section (2) of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Sri Singh only submits that the documents which were filed on behalf of the appellants did not establish the holding of periodic elections keeping in view the fact, that as per bye-law 8 (v), the tenure of the Committee of Management is 3 years. In the absence of any elections held after 2008 periodically, as envisaged under the bye-laws, the Committee had become defunct and therefore, a complaint was filed which was entertained by the Deputy Registrar, where a decision has been taken to hold fresh elections. This decision has been taken after recording a clear finding to the effect that the elections as alleged by the appellants were fake transactions and consequently, they could not be treated to be valid or genuine for holding the elections of the Committee of Management of the Society to be valid. 6. This decision has been taken after recording a clear finding to the effect that the elections as alleged by the appellants were fake transactions and consequently, they could not be treated to be valid or genuine for holding the elections of the Committee of Management of the Society to be valid. 6. It has further been submitted that the registers as produced by the appellants were manipulated and the depiction of the alleged documents by the appellants were clearly an act of manipulation which has rightly been disbelieved by the Deputy Registrar. Sri Singh therefore submits that there is no error in the order of the Deputy Registrar and therefore, the learned Single Judge has allowed the elections to proceed which would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. Sri Singh therefore submits that the appeal does not deserve to be entertained and the parties should be allowed to contest the matter before the learned Single Judge. 7. Sri G. C. Verma, on the other hand, submits that the order impugned before the learned Single Judge dated 1.1.2016, passed by the Deputy Registrar, even though has proceeded to notice the documents relating to the elections dated 24.6.2009, 26.6.2012 and 26.6.2015 yet he has chosen to enter into the validity of these elections which jurisdiction he did not have. In order to examine as to whether the documents were genuine and the elections were validly held or not, the only course open to the Deputy Registrar was to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 for decision and for this, he has relied upon the following judgments to substantiate his submissions: - (1) 1988 AWC 1154 , All India Council through Bharat Dharam Maha Mandal vs. Asst. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi and another (2) 1991 (18) ALR 339 , Muslim Welfare Society and another vs. Asst. Registrar (3) 1997 (29) ALR 294, Shiksha Sansthan Samiti vs. Asst. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur and others; (4) 1998 (34) ALR 655 , Committee of Management, Sri Janta Audyogik Vidyalaya and another vs. Dy. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur and others; and (5) 2014 (1) UPLBEC 233 , Committee of Management Anjuman Kherul Almin Allahganj and another vs. State of U.P. & others 8. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur and others; (4) 1998 (34) ALR 655 , Committee of Management, Sri Janta Audyogik Vidyalaya and another vs. Dy. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur and others; and (5) 2014 (1) UPLBEC 233 , Committee of Management Anjuman Kherul Almin Allahganj and another vs. State of U.P. & others 8. He, therefore, submits that the learned Single Judge ought to have entertained this issue of jurisdiction at the threshold and should have restrained the holding of elections by the Deputy Registrar which authority was being exercised by the subsequent impugned order dated 29.3.2016 and the same ought to have been prevented. Having not done so and having allowed the elections to proceed, the appellants are compelled to approach this Court against the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge to protect their substantive rights as they have held valid election on 26.6.15, the term whereof is yet to expire. 9. Countering the aforesaid submissions, Sri M. B. Singh contends that the issue relating to jurisdiction where the documents relating to elections have not been able to establish periodic elections, the judgments relied upon by Sri G. C. Verma do not come to his aid. To the contrary, Sri M. B. Singh has relied upon the following judgments: - (1) Committee of Management, Adarsh Shiksha Niketan, Ranukoot, District Sonbhadra and another versus The Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Division, Varanasi and others [ (2000) 2 UPLBEC 1600 para 3]; (2) Committee of Management, Shiksha Prasar Samiti Dharai Mafi, District Sultanpur and others versus State of U.P. And others [ 2012 (2) ADJ 263 (LB) paras 9, 10 and 11] (3) Committee of Management, Sukhpura Inter College, Sukhpura, District Ballia and another versus Alleged Committee of Management, Sukhpura Inter College, Sukhpura, District Ballia and others [ (1998) 1 UPLBEC 379 paras 9, 10 and 11] (4) Managing Committee and another versus State of U.P. and others [2009 (4) ESC 2469 (Alld) paras 19, 20 and 21] (5) Yuva Jagriti Parishad and another versus State of U.P. And others [ 2010 (9) ADJ 565 paras 4 and 5] (6) Committee of Management, Heroes Memorial Junior High School, Saharanpur and another versus State of U.P. and others [ (2013) 1 UPLBEC 497 para 7] 10. Having considered the aforesaid submissions raised, what we find is that the learned Single has not touched upon this issue of jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar to proceed to decide a doubt or dispute with regard to the election of office bearers. The documents which had been filed by the respective parties before the Deputy Registrar whether they were genuine or in-genuine and whether the elections were valid or not, was an issue relating to the jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar inasmuch Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 provides that any such doubt or dispute would have to be referred to the Prescribed Authority for a decision in accordance with law. We are not pronouncing upon the merits of the said claim by either of the parties, but we find that the learned Single Judge has not addressed himself to the issue of jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar and consequently allowing the elections to be held without a decision by the competent authority would therefore not be the correct approach of exercise of discretion. 11. In view of what has been stated above and the law as has been indicated by the respective parties, we find on the facts that emerge a prima facie case exists for which an interim arrangement is necessary on the facts of the present case. Consequently, we provide that if any elections are held pursuant to the orders impugned in the writ petition, they shall not be given effect to by the Deputy Registrar till disposal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge. 12. The Special Appeal is, therefore, disposed of with the liberty to the parties to exchange affidavits within three weeks and the matter shall be disposed of by the learned Single Judge finally in light of the law laid down by this Court and keeping in view the provisions of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.