JUDGMENT Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Attau Rahman Masoodi,JJ. Heard Sri M.B. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Avinash Tiwari for the third respondent and learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 2.5.2016 passed at the interim stage in a pending writ petition. The order is extracted hereinunder: "In compliance of the Court's order, Sri G.M. Kamil has filed supplementary affidavit bringing on record the alleged resolution, which has been passed in favour of the petitioner to file this writ petition. Sri Tauseef Ahmad Siddiqui, has filed objection to this resolution dated 28.4.2016. He says that the petition was filed on 9.4.2014, while resolution has been passed on 28.4.2016. This clearly shows that the date on which the petition was filed, the petitioner did not have resolution in his favour. However, Sri Kamil says that he will file minutes of the proceedings. It has been informed that the election has been notified on 25.4.2016 and the date is fixed on 5.5.2016. Let the parties participate in the election. List this case again." 3. The dispute raised in the writ petition was the order passed on 5.2.2016 and consequential order dated 1.4.2016 whereby the Deputy Registrar, treating the tenure of the Committee of Management of the Society to have come to an end, has proceeded to exercise his power under sub-section (2) of Section 25 for holding fresh elections of the Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 4. The learned Single Judge has permitted "the parties" to participate in the elections. It is this order which is being questioned, contending that if the order of the Deputy Registrar was without jurisdiction in proceeding to adjudicate upon the previous elections then in that event, the learned Single Judge should have stayed the operation of the order and should not have issued a mandamus for participation of the parties in the election that was scheduled for 5.5.2016. 5. 5. Sri M.B. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants contends that if the Deputy Registrar was proceeding to consider the tenure of the Committee of Management as one of the factors, then the same was to be adjudged in the light of the claim of the appellants where fresh elections had already been set up periodically including the latest election dated 2.2.2014 and the list of office bearers whereof had been duly registered with the Deputy Registrar himself. He, therefore, contends that once the list of office bearers had been registered as per the elections of 2014, then if there was any doubt or dispute with regard to continuance of such office bearers, the Deputy Registrar was bound to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 for a decision thereon. The Deputy Registrar could not have clothed himself with the powers under the garb that the Committee had become defunct to decide the dispute of said nature. 6. Replying to the said submissions on the legal plane, learned counsel for the third respondent Sri Tiwari has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the special appeal itself on the ground that it is only an interlocutory procedural order which does not amount to a judgement and hence no interference is called for under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. He further submits that the Deputy Registrar was well within his authority to exercise his discretion and proceed with the elections, once he had arrived at the conclusion that the election of the Committee of Management of the Society had not been held timely, the tenure whereof was five years under the bye-laws. He further contends that in the aforesaid background if the findings recorded by the Deputy Registrar are taken into account then in that event, since the previous election of 2009 had not been held timely as it ought to have been held in 2008, the subsequent elections would also fall through and consequently, there was no error in the order of the Deputy Registrar so as to call for any interference. He submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed holding of the election and participation of the parties therein. The argument appears to be also that if the elections have been notified, it should not be impeded at this stage. He submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed holding of the election and participation of the parties therein. The argument appears to be also that if the elections have been notified, it should not be impeded at this stage. 7. Learned Standing Counsel has also been heard on behalf of the first and the third respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents have agreed for a final disposal of this appeal at this stage without awaiting any filing of affidavits. 8. On consideration of the aforesaid facts what we find is that the dispute that was initially raised by the third respondent was in relation to the earlier elections and the continuance of the earlier office bearers which related to the year 2009, particularly the proceedings dated 25.11.2010. It also appears that since the earlier election had been held on 28.12.2003, the tenure of five years stood completed on 28.12.2003 but the elections were held on 25.2.2009. The resolution dated 25.11.2010 brought about alleged alterations in the constitution of the Committee. The election of 2009 treated to be beyond time by the Deputy Registrar to construe that the Committee of Management had become defunct. What appears from the order is that the appellants had further set up an election on 2.2.2014 after the election of 2009. In such a situation the elections dated 2.2.2014 were also being questioned by the third respondent on the same ground that since the earlier elections were held beyond time, the subsequent elections could not be held by the appellants. It is this issue which has been taken up by the Deputy Registrar who has proceeded to hold both the elections to be beyond time and consequently assumed authority for holding of fresh elections. 9. On such facts, we are unable to support the contention of the third respondent, inasmuch as the Deputy Registrar firstly, could not have gone into the facts of an election of 2009, the period whereof had already come to an end and secondly, the election having been held on 2.2.2014, the tenure of the Committee which is five years, would come to an end only in the year 2015. The list of office bearers of the Committee of the 2014 elections had been registered by the Deputy Registrar on 26.3.2014. The list of office bearers of the Committee of the 2014 elections had been registered by the Deputy Registrar on 26.3.2014. Consequently, these elections and the continuance of the office bearers having been disputed, then in that event, in view of the Division Bench judgement in the case reported in 1988 AWC 1154 : All India Council through Bharat Dharam Maha Mandal vs. Asst. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi and another, this jurisdiction could not have been assumed by the Deputy Registrar. The aforesaid judgement had been followed by our Court in several other decisions, the latest being in the case of Committee of Management Darul Uloom Ghausiya Teghiya Rasoolabad Amethi and another v. State Of U.P. and others in Special Appeal No. 144 of 2016, decided on 13.4.2016. 10. Such being the legal position, the learned Single Judge, therefore, by the impugned order has allowed the holding of an election and directing participation of the parties on the strength of an order which was not within the jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar. The Deputy Registrar by the impugned orders passed by him was virtually deciding the dispute of an election and continuance of the office bearers that amounted to curtailing of its tenure with the direction of fresh elections. This exercise is within the domain of the prescribed authority. Consequently, the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent does not hold water inasmuch as the learned Single Judge has directed for participation of the parties and the holding of the election on 5.5.2016, which almost is a final mandate issued by this Court. This could not have been done as this amounts to a final relief which could have been granted only on the disposal of the writ petition. Consequently, in view of the Full Bench decision in the case of Ashutosh Shrotriya and others v. Vice-Chancellor, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University and others, (2015) 4 UPLBEC 2673 , Paras 34, 35, and 37, the special appeal would be maintainable against such an order of the learned Single Judge. 11. For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find it justified for the impugned order to at least continue till the matter is finally disposed of by the learned Single Judge as the learned counsel for the respondent no. 11. For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find it justified for the impugned order to at least continue till the matter is finally disposed of by the learned Single Judge as the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 prays that he may be permitted to contest the writ petition itself before the learned Single Judge. 12. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 2.5.2016 and direct that the status quo that was existing as on 2.5.2016 shall be maintained by the parties till the disposal of the writ petition or any orders that may be passed by the learned Single Judge during the pendency of the writ petition.