JUDGMENT : This revisional application is directed against the order dated 10th March, 2016 passed in connection a petition filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff no. 2, Krishnapada Roy, praying for the following directions upon the Special Officer:-A) to accept the nomination papers of the plaintiff no. 2 for the post of General Secretary being a life member of the All India Bank of India SC/ST/OBC employees Association (Eastern Zone) & Anr; B) to hold extra ordinary general meeting and the election on the basis of list of members as on this date and not on the basis of list of members of 2013; C) to invite fresh nomination of the candidates for the respective posts of the Executive Committee of the Association; D) to hold extra ordinary general meeting and also the election in strict compliance of the Rules and Byelaws of the Association (plaintiff no. 1). 2. The suit concerns control of the Eastern Zone Branch of the All India Bank of India SC/ST/OBC Employees’ Association. The plaintiff no. 2 was a General Secretary of the said Association elected in the year 2008 for a period of three years. The plaintiff filed a suit alleging that as per the Rules he is the only person to convene executive committee meeting and general body meeting of the eastern zone and the defendants however are denying such right of the plaintiff and the issuance of notice by the defendant no. 1 on 3rd September, 2011 in the capacity as Joint General Secretary was illegal. 3. The defendant no. 1 being the Joint General Secretary has no authority to convene any meeting of the Executive Committee and that the plaintiff no. 2 is the only person authorized to convene any such meeting. He raises several claims. 4. The defendants contended that the plaintiff no. 2 has retired from his service in September, 2010 and after retirement from his service he is not the member of the plaintiff no. 1, Association and as such he has ceased to be the General Secretary of the Association. It is further contended that the plaintiff no. 2 did not deposit the requisite fees for life membership of the Association. 5. Plaintiff no. 2 was elected as General Secretary on 13th August, 2008 and his tenure ended on 12th January, 2011. 1, Association and as such he has ceased to be the General Secretary of the Association. It is further contended that the plaintiff no. 2 did not deposit the requisite fees for life membership of the Association. 5. Plaintiff no. 2 was elected as General Secretary on 13th August, 2008 and his tenure ended on 12th January, 2011. No election was held after 12th January, 2011 till the purported election held on 27th November, 2011 at the behest of the defendants. 6. If the tenure of the plaintiff no. 2 as General Secretary has ended on 12th January, 2011, then the tenure of the defendant no. 1 as Joint General Secretary would also be ended on 12th January, 2011 and if the plaintiff no. 2 cannot be considered as General Secretary after 12th January, 2011, then the defendant no. 1 on the same reasoning also would not have any authority to issue notice dated 5th September, 2011 as Joint General Secretary. He was elected as Joint General Secretary in the year 2008 whose terms as per rules ended on 12th January, 2011. It further appears from record that in spite of retirement of the plaintiff no. 2 from his service on September, 2010 he was functioning as General Secretary of the Association till 12th January, 2011. 7. If the plaintiff no. 2 could act as General Secretary of the Association till 12th January, 2011 in spite of his retirement in September, 2010, it could not be said that due to his retirement from service in September, 2010 he has no authority to act as General Secretary after 12th January, 2011. If the authority of plaintiff no. 2 to act as General Secretary till 12th January, 2011 in spite of his retirement in September, 2010 be considered as legal and valid, he must be accepted as General Secretary of the Association after 12th January, 2011 till the formation of a new committee by way of an election. 8. The issue is as to whether the plaintiff no. 2 was still a member of the Association after his retirement in September, 2010 has been taken up at various stages in the earlier proceedings. 9. 8. The issue is as to whether the plaintiff no. 2 was still a member of the Association after his retirement in September, 2010 has been taken up at various stages in the earlier proceedings. 9. In several interlocutory orders passed before the matter reached to this Court, the Trial Court on examination of the record and the Constitution of India found that there is no provision either in the old Constitution or in the amended Constitution that a member of the Association would be ceased to be a member of the Association after retirement from his service. In fact there is no provision that any office bearer including a General Secretary will cease to be the General Secretary or other office bearer of the Association as soon as said member retires from service. However, in the amended Constitution there is no provision that a retired member can become a life member on payment of requisite subscription through zonal unit. 10. It is the contention of the defendant nos. 1 to 7 that though the plaintiff no. 2 has retired from his service in September, 2010 he has deposited subscription for life membership on 5th April, 2012 and accordingly from 1st October, 2010 till 5th April, 2012 the plaintiff no. 2 was not the member of the Association and as such he cannot be considered as General Secretary of the Association from 1st October, 2010. 11. This contention of the defendants appears to be erroneous on the face of clear acknowledgement of the fact that the plaintiff no. 2 had continued to act as General Secretary till 12th January, 2011 and hence would be allowed to continue to function till the new committee is formed. This also happens with the Joint General Secretary. Moreover there is no time limit in the Constitution that within a stipulated period of superannuation/retirement the retired employee shall have to deposit the fees for life membership. 12. The Trial Court on the basis of the aforesaid considerations restrained the defendant nos. 1 to 7 from claiming themselves to be the committee members of the plaintiff no. 1/Association. 13. An appeal was preferred against the said order before this Court, being FMA 1061 of 2012. 12. The Trial Court on the basis of the aforesaid considerations restrained the defendant nos. 1 to 7 from claiming themselves to be the committee members of the plaintiff no. 1/Association. 13. An appeal was preferred against the said order before this Court, being FMA 1061 of 2012. The Hon’ble Division Bench disposed of the said appeal on 15th January, 2013 by appointing Joint Special Officers under whose supervision the extra ordinary annual general meeting of the Association would be held to ascertain the views of the members regarding functioning of the Association. 14. The learned counsel for the parties, however, submits that because of the internal fights between the parties, the Joint Special Officers could not implement the said decision of the Division Bench. The fact remains that by a subsequent order dated 30th April, 2013 the Trial Court directed the Joint Special Officers to prepare a revised members’ list of the Association by including the plaintiff no. 2 as life member of the Association and to reschedule the entire election process from the process of final publication of the members’ list. In arriving at the said conclusion the Trial Court has taken into consideration the earlier views expressed by that Court on 17th July, 2012. 15. The second order passed by the Trial Court directing to prepare a revised members’ list of the Association by including the plaintiff no. 2 as life member of the Association was challenged by the defendants, petitioners herein, before a Division Bench of this Court in FMAT 592 of 2013. The Hon’ble Division Bench by an order dated 9th December, 2014 disposed of the said appeal by the following order:- “After hearing the learned advocates for the parties, the appeal is disposed of by directing the Joint Special Officer to allow the respondent no. 2 to this appeal to cast his vote subject to the result of the suit. Needless to mention, it is without prejudice to the contention of the appellants that the respondent no. 2 is not eligible to vote. Whether the respondent no. 2 is eligible to vote or ineligible to vote, is an issue, which shall be decided by the learned Trial Court at the hearing of the suit. The appeal and application are disposed of.” 16. 2 is not eligible to vote. Whether the respondent no. 2 is eligible to vote or ineligible to vote, is an issue, which shall be decided by the learned Trial Court at the hearing of the suit. The appeal and application are disposed of.” 16. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the opposite parties preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was however dismissed in limini. Thereafter the plaintiff no. 2 has filed an application, inter alia, praying for directions upon the Joint Special Officers as mentioned herein. 17. The Trial Court interpreted the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench in favour of the plaintiff no. 2 thereby permitting the plaintiff no. 2 to contest the post of General Secretary in the election subject to the result of the present suit. 18. This order of the Trial Court is the subject matter of challenge in this revisional application. 19. Right to cast vote is a valuable right, but cast to vote itself does not give a right to a person to contest the post in the election. 20. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court appears to have restricted the right of the plaintiff no. 2 to cast vote in the election and not to contest the said election. The said order of the Hon’ble Division Bench was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also dismissed the said Special Leave Petition. 21. Since the Division Bench of this Court has restricted the right of the petitioner only to cast vote, in my view the Trial Court has exceeded his jurisdiction in permitting the plaintiff no. 2 to contest the post of General Secretary of the Association in the election. 22. In the suit it has to be decided whether the plaintiff no. 2 can claim to be a life member of the Association. A prima facie finding arrived at the interlocutory stage in my view has been curtailed to some extent by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in restricting the right of the plaintiff no. 2 to cast vote in the election, thereby keeping a hope alive for the plaintiff no. 2 as to his membership till the suit is ultimately decided. 23. Under such circumstances, the only portion of the impugned order permitting the plaintiff no. 2 to cast vote in the election, thereby keeping a hope alive for the plaintiff no. 2 as to his membership till the suit is ultimately decided. 23. Under such circumstances, the only portion of the impugned order permitting the plaintiff no. 2 to contest the post of General Secretary of the Association is set aside. The other directions shall remain. 24. It is needless to mention that the said election shall abide by the result of the suit. 25. This revisional application is thus allowed in part. 26. There will be no order as to costs.