JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 04.10.2019, passed by learned District Judge, Pali (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellate Court') rejecting the petitioners' appeal, against the order dated 13.08.2019, passed by learned Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Pali (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court'), vide which the petitioners' application for grant of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been partly allowed. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the petitioners had instituted a suit for injunction against the respondents defendants seeking an order restraining them from holding election on the basis of notification dated 06.07.2019, issued by the Election Officer, Pali. Along with the suit so instituted, the petitioners also filed an application seeking temporary injunction and prayed that the defendants be restrained from holding election in furtherance of notification dated 06.07.2019 and till the elections are held in accordance with law, a Committee be appointed for management of Gurunanak Gurudwara, Pali. 3. Learned trial Court partly allowed the application for temporary injunction, vide order dated 13.08.2019 and permitted the petitioners plaintiffs to use their franchise in the ensuing election of the Committee. 4. Petitioners preferred an appeal, which was rejected by the Appellate Court inter alia finding that the order impugned (13.08.2019) does not call for any interference, while observing that though the trial Court has passed a just order giving the plaintiffs a right to vote, but even such right has not been exercised by the plaintiffs. The Appellate Court found no merit in the appeal. 5. Mr. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Appellate Court has erred in rejecting petitioners' appeal and trial Court in passing the impugned order dated 13.08.2019, whereby petitioners' temporary injunction application has been allowed in part only. 6. Mr. Soni contended that petitioners' application for grant of temporary injunction deserved acceptance in its entirety and the elections were required to be held under supervision of appropriate Committee appointed by the Court. 6. Mr. Soni contended that petitioners' application for grant of temporary injunction deserved acceptance in its entirety and the elections were required to be held under supervision of appropriate Committee appointed by the Court. It was argued that petitioners' main prayer in the temporary injunction application has been that the Election Officer be restrained from holding fresh election in terms of notification dated 06.07.2019 as the notification dated 06.07.2019 (Annex.5) itself was illegal and that the Election Officer was not justified in summoning fresh forms of membership, particularly when the plaintiffs' membership had not been terminated. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that Appellate Court has not committed any illegality or error of law in rejecting petitioners' appeal. The trial Court had passed a just order inasmuch as a liberty has been given to the petitioners plaintiffs to exercise their voting right. 8. If the allegations and arguments advanced by the petitioners are found to be correct, the civil suit filed by the petitioners would obviously be allowed, resulting in setting aside of the contentious election. Since the elections have been held, votes cast and result declared, petitioners' other reliefs particularly appointment of the Committee has been rendered infructuous. 9. This Court does not find any substance and merit in the present writ petition. 10. The writ petition, therefore, fails. 11. The stay application is also dismissed.