ORDER : This revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner who is the 2nd respondent in S.O.P.No.600 of 2018 on the file of XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, aggrieved by the docket order dated 22.02.2022 passed in S.O.P.No.600 of 2018. The docket order is passed on the Memos dated 09.12.2020 and 30.06.2021 filed by the 1st respondent herein. 2. Originally S.O.P.No.600 of 2018 was filed under Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act praying to pass a decree declaring the petitioner-Association headed by its President Sri G.Anjaiah Goud and other members mentioned in the list submitted to the Registrar of Societies by the petitioner-Association with the approval of apex body i.e., respondent No.4 for the period 2018 to 2020 vide Association’s letter dated 12.08.2018 as elected body of the association; to grant permanent injunction restraining the respondent Nos.1 and 2 from representing themselves as Executive Body members and/or office bearers of the petitioner’s association and from doing any act, deed or thing on behalf of or in the name of the petitioner’s-Association; to grant permanent injunction restraining the respondent Nos.1 and 2 from accessing or using any property belonging to the petitioner’s association including documents thereof; direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to deliver to the CEC of the petitioner’s-Association, all such property of the petitioner that are within the possession of the respondents including bank statements and the bank accounts of the petitioner’s-Association, records, registers, minutes books etc of the petitioner’s-Association and to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to interfere in the internal matters of the petitioner’s Association and to pay costs to the petitioner. 3. The said S.O.P., was filed by the S.C. Railway O.B.C. Employees Association, represented by its President, stating that in the year 1994, the members of the Railway Employees belonging to OBC Community formed the petitioner-Association and functioning at the Headquarters at Secunderabad and in the year 1998, the members of the Railway Employees belonging to OBC Community formed the All India O B C Railway Employees Federation, New Delhi at Apex level in order to attend to the grievances of members in an efficient manner. It is further stated that as per the orders in Writ Petition (Civil) bearing No.20401 of 2014 of the High Court of Allahabad, the Railway Board has passed an order dated 04.08.2016 stating that the All India OBC Railway Employees Federation is the Apex body and its decision is binding on Zonal OBC Associations and the elected list of Zonal office bearers of Zonal OBC Association should be circulated after approval under the joint signature of President and General Secretary of the Federation. Accordingly, the approved list of office bearers of petitioner-Association was circulated for a period of two years from 29.05.2016 to 28.05.2018 by S.C.Railway. That as per the by-laws of petitioner-Association the out going Body of the Association called for the General body meeting for conducting elections for a period of two years from 2018 to 2020 and as per the decision/Resolution of the General Body Meeting, elections were held on 12.08.2018 in the Zonal Office, Secunderabad. The elected list was approved under the joint signature of President and General Secretary of the Federation. 4. The petitioner-Association contended that respondents 1 and 2 therein have not participated in the elections and started making efforts to create confusion by falsely manipulating a pseudo elections with a few selected persons who are non –Railway employees which is highly illegal and against the orders of the Railway Board. It is also contended that during the tenure of executive committee of the petitioner-Association from 2014 to 2016, the petitioner and the respondent Nos.1 & 2 held executive positions and during the said tenure, significant changes occurred. Meanwhile then General Secretary retired from service on 30.09.2015 and the President passed away in the month of April, 2016. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 unilaterally declared himself as the General Secretary without the consent of Executive body. Questioning the said action, a civil suit in O.S.No.345 of 2016 on the file of XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad was filed wherein, the trial Court granted injunction restraining the respondent therein from interfering with the affairs of petitioner-Association. Thereafter the matter was compromised before the Lok Adalat agreeing that parties to the suit will function in accordance with consultation of the Federation and will abide the resolutions adopted and passed by the General Body. 5. Thereafter the matter was compromised before the Lok Adalat agreeing that parties to the suit will function in accordance with consultation of the Federation and will abide the resolutions adopted and passed by the General Body. 5. The further contention of petitioner-Association is that having compromised the matter, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 started acting against the welfare of Society and by manipulating the facts on 23.08.2018, respondents 1 and 2 therein submitted a Memorandum to S.N.Agarwal, Member Staff, Railway Board, New Delhi on the letter head of the Association referring them as President and General Secretary, even though they were expelled from the Association after their term is over and disturbing the day to day affairs of the petitioner-Association. In such circumstances, the Association was compelled to file a suit against them which was numbered as S.O.P.No.600 of 2018 on the file of I-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 6. In the said S.O.P, I.A.No.1438 of 2019 was filed praying to grant injunction and the same was allowed by order dated 14.02.2020 granting injunction against respondents. While so, respondents 1 and 2 filed Memo dated 09.12.2020 stating that suit has become infructuous and prayed to dismiss the same as infructuous. The trial Court by order dated 22.02.2022 declined to dismiss the suit as infructuous. Hence, this revision. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 filed Memo dated 09.12.2020 stating that pending S.O.P., elections were conducted on 08.03.2020 by A. Venu Madhav claiming to be the General Secretary of the petitioner’s-Association and alleged office bearers even addressed letter dated 08.03.2020 to the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and to the Registrar of Societies. In view of newly elected list of office bearers, the main O.P., has become infructuous and the same is liable to be dismissed as infructuous. Again the learned counsel for the respondents filed similar Memo on 30.06.2021 reiterating almost the same contents as in the earlier Memo dated 09.12.2020. He further submitted that basing on the said Memos, the main O.P., has to be dismissed as infructuous in view of constitution of new Body, whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner therein filed objections to the Memo. He further submitted that basing on the said Memos, the main O.P., has to be dismissed as infructuous in view of constitution of new Body, whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner therein filed objections to the Memo. The main gist of the objections raised by the petitioner goes to show that the main S.O.P., is valid and this Court has to conduct enquiry to decide the genuineness or validity of the elections held on 12.08.2018 and respondent No.2 by filing the memo is trying to mislead the Court and basing on the objection raised by the respondents therein, the Court below inclined to hold that it is not just and proper to dismiss the main S.O.P, as infructuous basing on the Memos filed by the respondent No.2. Against the same, this revision is filed. 8. Heard Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Mamidi Avinash Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri V.Ravindranath Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that as the term of election itself has completed by March, 2020 and S.O.P., is filed in the year 2018 to declare the petitioner-Association as elected body. As the time itself is completed no cause survives in the S.O.P. As such, prayed the Court to dismiss the S.O.P., as infructuous. 10. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents would submit that even though the term is completed, the Court has to decide the validity of the election as there are serious allegations against the respondents in the S.O.P., and prayed the Court to dismiss the C.R.P. 11. As seen from the record, S.O.P.No.600 of 2018 was filed to declare the petitioner-Association headed by its President Sri G.Anjaiah Goud and other members as elected body of the Association. According to the petitioner the term is from 2018 to 2020. The said Memos are filed in the year 2020 and 2021, as the next election body has also come into force in March, 2020 itself no cause survives in S.O.P.No.600 of 2018. 12. In the similar situation the Apex Court in J.M.Biswas Vs N.K.Bhattacharjee and others, (2002) 4 Supreme Court Cases 68, in para 10 it is observed as under : “10. 12. In the similar situation the Apex Court in J.M.Biswas Vs N.K.Bhattacharjee and others, (2002) 4 Supreme Court Cases 68, in para 10 it is observed as under : “10. From the narration of facts and the contentions raised on behalf of the parties, it is clear that the dispute raised in the case has lost its relevance due to passage of time and subsequent events which have taken place during the pendency of the litigation. As noted earlier, the dispute in the case relates to election of office-bearers of the South-Eastern Railway Men's Union. The dispute arose at a point of time when both the appellant and Respondent 1 were members of the said Union. Now both have ceased to be members of the Union. Further, successive elections have been held to elect office-bearers and the office-bearers so elected have been recognized by the management. In the circumstances, continuing this litigation will be like flogging a dead horse. Such litigation, irrespective of the result, will neither benefit the parties in the litigation nor will serve the interest of the Union. Accepting the contentions raised on behalf of Respondent 1 that the successive elections held in the meantime were invalid because he was not permitted to participate in them and to quash all such elections and direct holding of fresh elections under the supervision of the court, will be contrary to democratic functioning of the employees' Union. Furthermore, courts in the present situation of exploding dockets can ill afford to stand (sic spend) time in such an exercise.” 13. Likewise, in the present case also successive elections were conducted and new Body has come into force. As such, the order of the Court below is set aside. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the docket order dated 22.02.2022 in S.O.P.No.600 of 2018 on the file of XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. Consequently, S.O.P.No.600 of 2018 is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.