ORDER : 1. Defendant No.1, in the suit filed the above revision against the order 19.05.2022 in I.A.No.520 of 2022 in I.A.No.159 of 2021 in O.S.No.459 of 2021 on the file of learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor. 2. Plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.459 of 2021 against defendants seeking perpetual injunction restraining defendant No.1, his men, agents, etc., from alienating the plaint schedule property. 3. In the plaint, it was contended inter alia that the suit schedule property belongs to defendant No.2 Cooperative House Building Society (hereinafter referred to as ‘society’). Defendant No.1 is President and plaintiff is one of the members, of the society. Plaint schedule property was purchased by the society with the funds of the plaintiff and other members under registered sale deed, dated 24.10.2018. Plaintiff contributed Rs.10,50,000/-. Defendant No.1 developed hostile attitude towards the society and misappropriated huge money. Defendant No.1 failed to render accounts. Defendant No.1 got executed sham and nominal sale deed, dated 30.01.2020 in the name of his wife. Plaintiff lodged a complaint against defendant No.1 and others and the same was registered as crime No.367 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 417, 418 and 420 of IPC, Section 5 of the Protection of Depositors and Financial Establishment Act and section 38 of Mutually Aided Co-Op Society Act. Police, after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet on the file of learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class and the same is numbered as C.C.No.1365 of 2020. 4. Defendant No.1 and other members voluntarily resigned to the post of President, on 08.06.2020. Resignation was accepted by the society and one V. Thandavamoorthy was nominated as convener for conducting the elections and to look after the affairs of the society. A new body is yet to be elected. Taking advantage of covid-19 pandemic situation, defendant No.1 with a dishonest intention is trying to alienate the suit schedule property in the names of kith and kin and is acting detrimental to the bye laws of the society. Hence, the suit was filed seeking perpetual injunction. 5. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement and contended, inter alia, that suit schedule property was purchased with the funds of plaintiff and other members under registered sale deed, dated 24.10.2018. Plaintiff’s membership was terminated in pursuance of general body meeting and executive committee meeting held on 27.07.2020 and 12.10.2021 respectively. Hence, the suit was filed seeking perpetual injunction. 5. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement and contended, inter alia, that suit schedule property was purchased with the funds of plaintiff and other members under registered sale deed, dated 24.10.2018. Plaintiff’s membership was terminated in pursuance of general body meeting and executive committee meeting held on 27.07.2020 and 12.10.2021 respectively. The share capital of the plaintiff will be refunded after deducting expenditure, etc. Defendant No.2, society was registered under Section 5 of the Cooperative Societies Act on 27.02.2018 and Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. V. Thandavamoorthy was removed as member of the society and his share capital was refunded to him on 11.01.2021. 6. Elections to the society were conducted on 27.07.2020 and in the said elections defendant No.1 was elected as President. Defendant No.1 never made any attempts to alienate the suit schedule property in the name of his kith and kin. If plaintiff has got any right with regard to the society, he has to invoke provisions of Societies Act. Eventually, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit. 7. Along with the suit, plaintiff filed I.A.No.159 of 2021 for grant of ad-interim injunction. By order, dated 11.06.2021, trial Court granted ad-interim injunction restraining defendant No.1 or his men, agents, servants or his assignees from alienating the petition schedule properties till 26.07.2021 subject to compliance of Proviso (a) and (b) of Rule 3 under Order XXXIX CPC, etc. 8. Defendant No.1 filed counter and reported ready for hearing I.A.No.159 of 2021. 9. On 10.05.2022, trial Court did not extend interim order and further endorsed that interim order granted on 11.06.2021 is vacated. However, I.A. was adjourned to 24.06.2022. 10. Plaintiff filed I.A.No.520 of 2022 under Section 151 of CPC to set aside order dated 10.05.2022 whereby injunction order granted earlier was vacated and to restore injunction orders. 11. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended inter alia that when I.A.No.159 of 2021 was called on 10.05.2022, plaintiff sought time for filing counter in I.A.No.405 of 2022, which was filed by defendant No.1 to reject the plaint. Petition for interrogatories in I.A. No.331 of 2020, is also pending. One K. Manohar filed I.A.No.351 of 2022 to implead himself as President of the society which is also pending. For effective disposal of I.A.No.159 of 2021, above three I.As. Petition for interrogatories in I.A. No.331 of 2020, is also pending. One K. Manohar filed I.A.No.351 of 2022 to implead himself as President of the society which is also pending. For effective disposal of I.A.No.159 of 2021, above three I.As. are required to be disposed of. However, respondents/defendants are protracting the same. In the absence of his counsel, order was passed on 10.05.2022, whereby interim order was vacated. Hence, filed application to set aside the said order and restore interim order till disposal of the petition on merits. 12. Defendant No.1 filed counter and opposed the application. It was contended that trial Court granted adinterim injunction on 11.06.2021. Counter was filed on 13.09.2021 and since then, plaintiff is not cooperating for disposal of I.A. and hence injunction was vacated on 10.05.2022. It was further contended that once injunction is vacated restoration of injunction does not arise and prayed to dismiss the application. 13. By docket order dated 19.05.2022, lower Court allowed I.A. No.520 of 2022 with a condition directing the plaintiff to file counter in I.A.No.405 of 2022 on the next date of hearing and to get ready for expedite disposal of I.A.No.159 of 2021. Aggrieved by the same, above revision is filed. 14. Heard learned counsel on either side. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that since order of injunction, granted in I.A.No.159 of 2022 is vacated, Court below ought not to have entertained and allowed I.A.No.520 of 2022 by restoring injunction. He would also contend that application filed under Section 151 of CPC does not lie. He would also contend that if the plaintiff is aggrieved by the order i.e. vacating injunction, he would have availed remedies available under law. However, trial court without considering these aspects restored injunction. 16. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would contend that plaintiff is always ready for disposal of I.A.No.159 of 2021. In fact, defendant filed I.A.No.405 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint and hence, I.A.No.159 of 2021 was not disposed of. Defendant No.1 taking advantage of vacation of injunction, is trying to dispose of the properties. Considering the fact situation, trial Court again granted injunction by allowing I.A. Since trial Court granted injunction, defendant, if aggrieved, had to file appeal. Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. 17. Defendant No.1 taking advantage of vacation of injunction, is trying to dispose of the properties. Considering the fact situation, trial Court again granted injunction by allowing I.A. Since trial Court granted injunction, defendant, if aggrieved, had to file appeal. Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. 17. The point for consideration is: Whether the trial Court having vacated injunction, is justified in granting injunction by allowing I.A.520 of 2022 filed under Section 151 of CPC? 18. The facts narrated supra would indicate that plaintiff filed suit seeking perpetual injunction against defendant No.1 directing him not to alienate the societies’ properties. Trial Court, on consideration granted ad-interim injunction on 11.06.2021. However, interim order was vacated by docket order, dated 10.05.2022, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder: “I.As. are p. Call on 24.06.22. Interim order not extended till then. Ld counsel for R1 is seeking urgency and rep before the Court submitting that he is ready in the matter. Even though the R1 is representing ready, the counsel for petitioner is not getting ready coming up with some petition or other. This Court has given ample opportunity to the petitioner. It is deemed that keeping in view of interim order, petitioner is dragging the matter by some reason or other. Even today, this Court directed to file counter in I.A.No.405 of 2022, he sought time as he need to obtain directions. Hence keeping the interim order in his favour, the petitioner counsel is dragging and not getting ready. Hence, the interim order, which was granted on 11.06.2021 is vacated. Call on 24.06.2022.” 19. A perusal of the above docket order dated 10.05.2022 would indicate that petitioner/plaintiff is not getting ready for disposal of I.A.No.159 of 2021 taking advantage of ad-interim injunction. Thus, the trial Court was not inclined to extend interim injunction and eventually vacated the same. In normal circumstances an order of injunction will be confirmed, discharged, varied or set aside. A careful perusal of the order dated 10.05.2022 would indicate that the Court below is not inclined to extend the ad-interim injunction since the plaintiff is not getting ready for disposal of I.A.No.159 of 2021. However, at the end of the order, it was observed that injunction granted earlier was vacated. If the injunction granted earlier is vacated at a later stage, there is no need to keep I.A. pending. However, at the end of the order, it was observed that injunction granted earlier was vacated. If the injunction granted earlier is vacated at a later stage, there is no need to keep I.A. pending. In fact, respondent/defendant filed counter and is reporting ready in I.A.No.159 of 2021. 20. Ad-interim injunction was granted in I.A.No.159 of 2021. In such a situation, Order XXXIX Rule 3-A mandates that the said application is to be disposed of within 30 days from the date of grant of injunction. In case if the application is not disposed of within 30 days, the Court must record reasons. This Court on 29.12.2022 while disposing of C.R.P.No.2693 of 2022, framed guidelines which will assist the Trial Court in disposing of injunction applications. 21. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial court did not extend the injunction granted earlier. The Trial court also did not vacate the order of injunction granted earlier. The concern of the trial court is to dispose of I.A.No.159 of 2021 in accordance with mandate of Order XXXIX Rule 3-A CPC. One should not be oblivious of the fact that an act of the Court shall not prejudice anyone. The guiding principle is “Actus Curiae Neminem Gravibit”. The order of the trial court cannot read, as if, trial court vacated the order of injunction. If the injunction order is vacated Court would not have kept I.A pending. It is pertinent to mention here that the Trial Court did not dispose of I.A.No.159 of 2021. Interlocutory application is still pending. When, injunction application is still pending consideration, there is no need to file a fresh application seeking to set aside the order. However, Trial Court should be careful in using the words. 22. Plaintiff filed I.A. under Section 151 CPC to set aside the order dated 10.05.2022 and to restore injunction. 23. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in K.K. Veluswamy v. N. Palaniswamy, 2011 (11) SCC 275 , while dealing with scope of Section 151 of CPC summarized as follows: (a) Section 151 is not a substantive provision which creates or confers any power or jurisdiction on courts. 23. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in K.K. Veluswamy v. N. Palaniswamy, 2011 (11) SCC 275 , while dealing with scope of Section 151 of CPC summarized as follows: (a) Section 151 is not a substantive provision which creates or confers any power or jurisdiction on courts. It merely recognizes the discretionary power inherent in every court as a necessary corollary for rendering justice in accordance with law, to do what is “right” and undo what is “wrong”, that is, to do all things necessary to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of its process. (b) As the provisions of the Code are not exhaustive, Section 151 recognises and confirms that if the Code does not expressly or impliedly cover any particular procedural aspect, the inherent power can be used to deal with such situation or aspect, if the ends of justice warrant it. The breadth of such power is coextensive with the need to exercise such power on the facts and circumstances. (c) A court has no power to do that which is prohibited by law or the Code, by purported exercise of its inherent powers. If the Code contains provisions dealing with a particular topic or aspect, and such provisions either expressly or by necessary implication exhaust the scope of the power of the court or the jurisdiction that may be exercised in relation to that matter, the inherent power cannot be invoked in order to cut across the powers conferred by the Code or in a manner inconsistent with such provisions. In other words the court cannot make use of the special provisions of Section 151 of the Code, where the remedy or procedure is provided in the Code. (d) The inherent powers of the court being complementary to the powers specifically conferred, a court is free to exercise them for the purposes mentioned in Section 151 of the Code when the matter is not covered by any specific provision in the Code and the exercise of those powers would not in any way be in conflict with what has been expressly provided in the Code or be against the intention of the legislature. (e) While exercising the inherent power, the court will be doubly cautious, as there is no legislative guidance to deal with the procedural situation and the exercise of power depends upon the discretion and wisdom of the court, and in the facts and circumstances of the case. The absence of an express provision in the Code and the recognition and saving of the inherent power of a court, should not however be treated as a carte blanche to grant any relief. (f) The power under Section 151 will have to be used with circumspection and care, only where it is absolutely necessary, when there is no provision in the Code governing the matter, when the bona fides of the applicant cannot be doubted, when such exercise is to meet the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of court. 24. Thus, the power under Section 151 CPC is not substantive but discretionary to render justice. However, while exercising its power the Court should be very cautious. In the case on hand, ad-interim injunction was granted on 11.06.2021. Trial Court, in the docket order, dated 10.05.2022, observed that plaintiff is not cooperating for disposal of I.A.No.159 of 2021. Trial Court, in such a situation, ought to have decided I.A.No.159 of 2021 instead of not extending the injunction and vacating order granted on 11.06.2021. As discussed supra, the order of the Trial court cannot construe as vacating the injunction. Had the trial court disposed of I.A.No.159 of 2021, the Court would not have entertained any further I.A. either to restore or to grant injunction. 25. The object of injunction is to maintain status quo pending litigation. Of course, based on the material placed, trial court, after filing of the counter, will pass appropriate orders. In the docket order, while restoring injunction order, trial Court, observed that pursuant to vacation of interim order on 10.05.2022, notwithstanding the undertaking filed by defendant No.1, he is proceeding further and, infact, all the survey numbers pertaining to suit schedule property were deleted from the prohibited properties and made open for registration. Thus, the trial court, in the interest of parties, in order to maintain ‘status quo’ exercised judicious discretion and granted injunction. 26. Practice in vogue is, filing memos or affidavits seeking extension of interim injunction. Based on the memos and affidavits, the order of injunction is being extended from time to time. Thus, the trial court, in the interest of parties, in order to maintain ‘status quo’ exercised judicious discretion and granted injunction. 26. Practice in vogue is, filing memos or affidavits seeking extension of interim injunction. Based on the memos and affidavits, the order of injunction is being extended from time to time. In some cases, parties or persons acquainted, due to inadvertence, are not filing memos or affidavits. As a result, injunction application is being adjourned to next date without extending the order. On the next date of adjournment, if memo or affidavit is filed, the trial court, in some cases, is not extending the interim order on the ground that the interim order granted on earlier occasion was not extended. However, the fact I.A. (injunction application) is still pending consideration, the trial court can exercise its jurisdiction and can extend the interim injunction. As a note caution, this court makes it clear that in such an event trial court shall insist filing of affidavit of the party seeking extension. By filing affidavit, party will make statement on oath. If the party deposes, in the affidavit, falsehood, the Court can pass necessary orders and initiate action including perjury. It is also settled principle of law that no orders will be passed on memos. However, practice of filing memos is developed over a period. In view of the present-day scenario, it is in the interest of justice and equity the Court shall insist the parties filing affidavits whenever extension of interim injunction is required. So that the party deposed to the affidavit will bring to the Court’s notice about maintaining of status quo pursuant to the interim order. 27. In view of the discussion supra, this court doesn’t find any illegality or perversity in the order of the trial court warranting interference under Art 227 of the Constitution of India. However, to meet the ends of justice, trial Court shall dispose of I.A.No.159 of 2021 as expeditiously as possible keeping in view of mandate under Order XXXIX Rule 3(A). With the above direction, this civil revision petition is disposed. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.