JUDGMENT : Jaishree Thakur, J. The present dispute in these two writ petitions arises out of election to be held for registered society known as Shri Oswal Singh Sabha, Jodhpur registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 (for short "the Act of 1958"). As per clause 6(i) of the constitution of society, the term of the elected body is three years and thereafter elections are to be held. One Dr. Mahendra Surana was elected as Chairman, Mr. Mahendra Bhansali was elected as General Secretary, Mr. Rajesh Bagrecha was elected as Joint General Secretary of Shri Oswal Singh Sabha for a period of three years in elections held on 19.4.2009 and 24.5.2009. On account of personal and unavoidable reasons, the Chairman Dr. Mahendra Surana tendered his resignation on 27.2.2010 and similarly General Secretary Mr. Mahendra Bhansali also tendered his resignation on 20.3.2010. The said resignations of the Chairman and the General Secretary were to be placed in the general meeting of the society but before the resignation could be accepted it was withdrawn by Mr. Mahendra Bhansali on 22.4.2010. In the meantime, an objection was raised about dual membership of the Vice Chairman Shri Bhoor Chand Jeerawala and Shri Rai Chand Bhansali. On 20.5.2010, the membership of Mr. Bhoor Chand Jeerawala and Mr. Rai Chand Bhansali came to be terminated. In the subsequent meeting of General Body of the society held on 13.6.2010, the resignation of Dr. Mahendra Surana was rejected but on 16.6.2010, Mr. Magh Raj Singhvi, impersonating himself to be Election Officer, issued a notice dated 16.6.2010 for holding the election of vacant posts of President and General Secretary on 18.7.2010. A suit was filed by the Shri Oswal Singh Sabha through Mr. Mahendra Bhansali for a declaration that notice dated 16.6.2010 (for holding election of vacant posts of President and General Secretary) be declared as void ab initio, as Mr. Magh Raj Singhvi, defendant no.2 in the suit, had no right or authority to issue a notice. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2,C.P.C. was filed. The prayer in the suit was primarily against the notice dated 16.6.2010 calling for election of President and General Secretary and for declaration that the said notice is illegal. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2,C.P.C. was filed. The prayer in the suit was primarily against the notice dated 16.6.2010 calling for election of President and General Secretary and for declaration that the said notice is illegal. The prayer made in the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. was for seeking temporary injunction that till the decision of the original suit, no election should be held pursuant to the notice dated 16.6.2010. 2. Reply was filed in the main suit itself and the lower court by an order dated 27.7.2010 while noting that elections had been held on 18.7.2010, directed that status quo be maintained and result be kept in a sealed cover. In appeal, the impugned order dated 27.7.2010 was set aside and the appeal was allowed. Aggrieved against the dismissal of the application filed, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11762/2010 has been filed. 3. It is contended by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the order passed by the Additional District Judge is wholly erroneous since the appellate court failed to appreciate the fact that the impugned notice dated 16.6.2010 had been issued by Mr. Magh Raj Singhvi impersonating himself to be the Election Officer. Moreover, the posts of President and General Secretary were not lying vacant as Mr. Mahendra Bhansali had withdrawn his resignation on 22.4.2010 and the resignation submitted by Dr. Mahendra Surana was rejected by the petitioner- Shri Oswal Singh Sabha in its meeting held on 13.6.2010. Resultantly, since the posts of President and General Secretary were not lying vacant, there was no occasion for holding the election to the said posts. Moreover, it is argued that instead of limiting itself to the validity of the order passed on application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., the appellate court has proceeded to give an opinion on the merits of the suit and such observations are wholly unwarranted. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the very suit has been rendered in-fructuous and as such is not maintainable on account of the fact that elections have already been held pursuant to the notice issued on 16.6.2010. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the very suit has been rendered in-fructuous and as such is not maintainable on account of the fact that elections have already been held pursuant to the notice issued on 16.6.2010. It is argued that after the declaration of the result, an application was moved to implead the elected candidates under Order I Rule 10, C.P.C. and for consequential amendment of the plaint. The application under Order I Rule 10, C.P.C. came to be dismissed by the trial court, leading to the filing of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1119/2011. It is argued that once the elections itself have been held, there is no occasion for entertaining the writ or grant of any interim order by this Court and that the suit may be decided after framing necessary issues. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 6. A civil suit seeking a declaration that notice issued on 16.6.2010 calling for elections should be declared as null and void along with an application moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. was filed. Admittedly the elections to the post of Chairman and Secretary took place as far back as on 18.7.2010 pursuant to the notice dated 16.6.2010 that was challenged in the suit. The lower court had noticed this fact and directed that the result be not disclosed and ordered that status quo be maintained. However the appellate authority set aside the order of the lower court and since then the elected officer bearers have been functioning. 7. Subsequent to the order passed by the trial court, being set aside, the petitioner herein moved an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC to have newly elected members impleaded as party, which came to be rejected, leading to challenging the said rejection in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1119/2011. The very purpose of filing an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. was to stay the proceedings of holding election pursuant to the notice dated 16.6.2010 which stood frustrated as elections commenced on the 18.7.2010 and since then elected members have been performing their duties. This writ petition came to be filed challenging the impugned order passed by the appellate court. This writ petition came to be filed challenging the impugned order passed by the appellate court. At the time of issuance of the notice, no stay was granted, resultantly, the elected members pursuant to the notice dated 16.6.2010 have been functioning as elected members of the Society. It is also noted that there was no challenge made to the very election itself, leaving the court to conclude that the elections held have been accepted. 8. The law as regards the grant of temporary injunction is well settled and an injunction may be granted, if in any suit the party seeking temporary injunction can satisfy the triple requirements of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. In the present case the elections have been held and there has been no challenge to the said election. The elected members have been functioning as such since 2010 without there being any challenge to the election itself. Prima facie there is no ground made out to interfere by this court to set aside the order dated 6.12.2010. it is also noted that the elections are to be held every three years and the term of the elected members has long expired and in any case the balance of convenience would be to hold fresh elections which learned counsel for the respondents contended that they are willing to and have made several attempts to do so. It is the sanguine hope of this Court that the election will be held expeditiously after following due procedure. 9. The suit has been pending for a reasonably long period and to date no issues have been framed. It would be expedient to remand the matter back with the direction to the trial court to frame issues. Since nothing survives in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11762/2010, the same is hereby dismissed and the matter is remanded back to the trial court for deciding the suit expeditiously within a period of one year. Needless to say any observations made by the appellate court on the merits of the case will not be of any consideration while deciding the suit. 10. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1119/2011 is arising out of an application declining to implement of two newly elected members pursuant to the election notice dated 16.6.2010. Since the very election has not been challenged, nothing survives in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. 10. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1119/2011 is arising out of an application declining to implement of two newly elected members pursuant to the election notice dated 16.6.2010. Since the very election has not been challenged, nothing survives in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. 11. In S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 36/2012 no notice was issued, there is no need to interfere in the matter. The Contempt Petition stands dismissed.