ORDER : 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 01.04.2024 in I.A. No. 88 of 2024 in E.O.P. No. 1 of 2022 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘impugned order) passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge at Nagarkurnool (hereinafter will be referred as ‘Trial Court’), the petitioners have preferred the present Revision to set aside the impugned order, wherein the petition filed by them under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to dismiss the E.O.P. No. 1 of 2022, was dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Trial Court. 3. The brief facts of the case, which necessitated the revision petitioners to file the present revision, are that the petitioners have filed I.A. No. 88 of 2024 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to dismiss the E.O.P. No. 1 of 2022 as infructuous. The brief averments of the affidavit filed in support of the petition in I.A. No. 88 of 2024 are as under: (a) The respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed E.O.P. No. 1 of 2022 to declare the impugned self declared elected body of the respondent Nos.3 to 24 dated 12.03.2022 as illegal, null and void. As per the bare reading of election petition, it was projected mainly that a self declared elected body was came in existence and the tenure of the said body will be of two years from 12.03.2022 to 12.03.2024 as per the bye law mentioned in the petition. (b) The original petition has inherent, incurable defects in institution itself. No document is filed that is to be declared as null and void as prayed in prayer which fact also conformed and authenticated by PW1, who is the petitioner and PW2 is witness. (c) The respondents failed to describe the petitioner designation in the main election petition by virtue of the said facts and circumstances, the main election petition has became infructuous. As per the pleadings, the tenure of the self declared elected body would complete by the date of 12.03.2022 according to the petition. Hence, the continuation of the cause of action and there cannot be any scope of getting executable decree. The main election petition became infructuous and the respondents cannot maintain and run the proceedings in view of passing of time by crossing the due date of 12.03.2024 as per the main election petition. Hence, the continuation of the cause of action and there cannot be any scope of getting executable decree. The main election petition became infructuous and the respondents cannot maintain and run the proceedings in view of passing of time by crossing the due date of 12.03.2024 as per the main election petition. Hence, prayed to dismiss the E.O.P. No. 1 of 2022. 4. In reply to the petition, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed counter, the brief averments of which are as under: (a) The petition is not maintainable as the deponent in the petition designated himself as General Secretary of Indian Mennonite Brotheren Church @ MB Church at Door No. 16-27, MB Mission Church, Nallavelly Road, Nagarkurnool Town and District is not correct. There is no church by name Indian Mennonite Brotheren Church @ MB Church at Mission compound existing in Nagarkurnool Town and District. In fact, the word alias is used to call an individual by sufficing other names and no registration authority will allow any society to have two names for one society. No authorisation is filed by the petitioner for the petition. The self declared elected body of IOMB church @ MB Church, Nagarkurnool is no way concerned with the administration of IMB Church situated at the premises No. 27, Nallavelly Road, Nagarkurnool Town and District. (b) The Executive body of the church counsel for the term 2020-2022 which was existing as on the date of instituting the present case is still existing and the pastor of IMB Church, Nagarkurnool is conducting the spiritual proceedings as per the orders of the Court dated 29.04.2022 in I.A. No. 38 of 2022 in EOP No. 1 of 2022. Moreover, as per the resolution dated 06.03.2022 passed by the church in the main petition, the elections to the executive body of IMB Church, Nagarkurnool were adjourned for awaiting the outcome of the order in EOP No. 4 of 2020 and also for updating the voters list as no voters list was readily available to conduct the elections. Moreover, as per the resolution dated 06.03.2022 passed by the church in the main petition, the elections to the executive body of IMB Church, Nagarkurnool were adjourned for awaiting the outcome of the order in EOP No. 4 of 2020 and also for updating the voters list as no voters list was readily available to conduct the elections. (c) When the question of existence of IMB Church @ MB Church at Nagarkurnool is under dispute, there is no question of the petitioners taking over the administration of church into their control which amounts to illegal and unlawful trespass into the premises of IMB Church, Nagarkurnool and disturbing the peaceful atmosphere in the church and creating panic among the peace loving devotees of IMB Church, Nagarkurnool. The deponent in the affidavit averred that as per bye laws the term of the office is two years. Thus, it goes without saying that the petitioners are admitting that they are governed by the bye laws of the IMB Church and therefore, the petitioners are strangers to the affairs of the church. The document dated 12.03.2024 being not available is not connected to the subject matter in the petition. The questions regarding the petitioners belonging to IMB Church or whether they belong to MB Church or whether they belong to IMB @ MB Church of Nagarkurnool are to be decided at the first instance and until the same is done the petitioners cannot seek any relief from the Court. To decide the said issues, the petitioners are to be cross examined in the petition. The Election Petition does not become infructuous for the above said reason. The evidence on behalf of petitioners in the main election petition was completed and documents were also marked on their behalf and the evidence on behalf of the petitioners in this petition is to be commenced and intentionally the petition is filed to drag on the matter and same is not maintainable. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition with costs. 5. The respondent No. 5 filed counter, the brief averments of which are as under: (a) The main election petition is not maintainable and devoid of merits and as such liable to be dismissed. The facts mentioned in the affidavit of the deponent in the petition are true and correct. The non maintainability of the election petition can be established from the evidence of PW1 and its documents. The facts mentioned in the affidavit of the deponent in the petition are true and correct. The non maintainability of the election petition can be established from the evidence of PW1 and its documents. The Centenary Mennonite Brothern Church is in existence since it is a registered society vide registration No. 63/2019-1958-59 which is not in dispute. The society of respondent No. 1 is extinct under law based on fictitious document and persons in order to reach their self scores and to dominate the administration of religious activities, which are being run in the mission compound through church under control of the said MB church of India as aforesaid in the interest of Christian Community at large and it has been in continuation since 1904 onwards till date. The said church is running throughout without any defects. Costs are to be awarded against the respondent Nos.1 to 3. (b) The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is to be looked into read with sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act for allowing this petition. The society of the respondent No. 1 is defunct by operation of law. Material facts were suppressed and there is no cause of action for the main election petition and the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are not entitled for any relief claimed in the petition and the documents filed on their behalf are created. The proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are to be initiated against the respondent Nos.1 to 3, who have no right and capacity as they committed fraud and they have no locus standi to file the present petition and also as they have no prima facie case since they approached the court with unclean hands and thus, prayed to dismiss the petition with costs. 6. On considering the rival contentions, the Trial Court dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the present Civil Revision Petition to set aside the impugned order on the following grounds: (i) It is pleaded by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the EOP that the tenure of the elected body is from 12.03.2022 to 12.03.2024, as such, their own admission that after 12.03.2024 the body will not function. The prayer sought in the election petition could not have been granted admittedly and therefore, continuing the prayer of the petition is waste of precious time of the Court. The prayer sought in the election petition could not have been granted admittedly and therefore, continuing the prayer of the petition is waste of precious time of the Court. (ii) Even according to the deposition of the PW1, the duration of the elected body is upto 12.03.2024. Admittedly the elections were held and results were declared on 12.03.2022 and period expires on 12.03.2024. The petition under reply is filed on 13.03.2024 and therefore, the trial Court committed a serious error in dismissing the petition. (iii) The trial Court directed its attention to an earlier application in I.A. No. 40 of 2022 which was filed under order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. It was found and by that time the term has not expired, hence, the disposal of the application in I.A. No. 40 of 2022 has no bearing on the present case. (iv) The trial Court ought to have seen that the main and crucial question as to whether in terms of the prayer of respondent Nos.1 to 3, the society can function beyond 12.03.2024. 7. Heard both sides and perused the record including the grounds of revision. 8. As can be seen from the averments of E.O.P. No. 1 of 2022, elections to the Executive Body of the Church Council was conducted on 07.03.2020, wherein members were declared elected to their respective posts. Challenging the very style of conduct of elections held on 07.03.2020 the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in EOP No. 1 of 2022 i.e., P.S.David Raj and P.B. Benhur along with two others filed O.P.No. 4 of 2020 to appoint Advocate Commissioner for conducting the elections to the Society with the help of the Pastor and Assistant Pastor of IMB Church, Nagarkurnool for the period 2020-22. During the pendency of the said case, one of the petitioners i.e., Devarapaga Joshuva expired and another petitioner i.e., K. Laxmaiah filed withdrawal petition. In the meanwhile, the members of Church filed a representation dated 20.02.2022 to the Chairman of IMB Church, Nagarkurnool requesting to conduct elections to the new Executive body of Church Council as the tenure of Executive Body of the Church Council will expired on 08.03.2022. In the meanwhile, the members of Church filed a representation dated 20.02.2022 to the Chairman of IMB Church, Nagarkurnool requesting to conduct elections to the new Executive body of Church Council as the tenure of Executive Body of the Church Council will expired on 08.03.2022. On 06.03.2022 the Executive Committee of Church Council met and after prolonged discussions, it was resolved to continue the existing Executive Body till the disposal of the case i.e., O.P.No. 4 of 2020, which was filed questioning the very style of conduct of elections. It is further averred in the petition that on 12.03.2022 at about 11.00 AM to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioners, the respondent No. 1 (who himself challenged the previous election Process conducted in the year 2020 in OP NO. 4/2020), Respondent Nos.3, 6 and 13 (who are the Executive Members of the present Church Council for the term 2020-2022), who also signed in the resolution dated 06.03.2022 along with 25 others illegally and highhandedly entered into the church premises on the pretext of offering prayers to the God, gathered together and proclaimed themselves as if the elections to the Executive Body of the Church Council for the term 2022-24 have been conducted and made a self declaration stating that they have been elected to the respective posts, which is illegal, unlawful and arbitrary. Questioning the elections alleged to have taken place on 12.03.2022, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein have filed E.O.P. No. 1 of 2022 on 22.03.2022. On 13.03.2024 the revision petitioner i.e., along with 21 others have filed I.A. No. 88 of 2024 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to dismiss the E.O.P. No. 1 of 2022 on the ground that the term of the self declared elected body was mentioned in the main election petition as from 12.03.2022 to 12.03.2024 and as such they have filed the petition on 13.03.2024 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to dismiss the main Election Petition as infructuous as the cause of action does not survive. 9. The respondent No. 1 filed detailed counter in this Civil Revision Petition denying the contents of the Civil Revision Petition and mainly contended that they have never stated anywhere in the petition filed before the trial Court that the term of the office was mentioned as with effect from 12.03.2022 to 12.03.2024. 9. The respondent No. 1 filed detailed counter in this Civil Revision Petition denying the contents of the Civil Revision Petition and mainly contended that they have never stated anywhere in the petition filed before the trial Court that the term of the office was mentioned as with effect from 12.03.2022 to 12.03.2024. A perusal of the entire pleadings on the behalf of the petitioners in E.O.P. No. 1 of 2022, it is no where mentioned that the term of the self declared elected body was from 12.03.2022 to 12.03.2024. 10. A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 4 to the EOP No. 1 of 2022, at paragraph No. 2 it clearly discloses that so called elections stated to have been conducted for the Executive body of the Church Council of IMB Church, Nagarkurnool on 12.03.2022 in between 11.00 AM to 2.00 PM was not at all conducted in the presence of respondent No. 4 i.e., D.J. Jeevanandham, who was alleged to have been elected as Vice President in the elections alleged to have taken place on 07.03.2020. It is pertinent to note that D.J. Jeevanandham already elected as Treasurer in the elections conducted on 07.03.2022 and as per the resolution dated 06.03.2022 passed by the Executive Body, the previous Executive Body is going to continue until disposal of the O.P.No. 4 of 2020. 11. The respondent No. 4 herein has filed counter, wherein he clearly submitted that he came to know through messages posted in whatsapp on 12.03.2022 and 13.03.2022 it was made known to the public that himself and respondent Nos.1 to 3, 5 to 25 have been declared elected to the respective posts in the Executive Body of the Church Council, IMB Church, Nagarkurnool in which his name also has been figured as against the post of Vice Chairman, which is done without his consent and knowledge. The respondent No. 4 further contended that he never participated in the alleged election process as no such elections were conducted and the same is self-posed elections only; the Executive Body of the Church Council have not resolved to conduct elections and not appointed Election Observers as was done in the past elections and not pronounced election process and also date was not fixed for elections due to decision taken on 06.03.2022 to await the orders to be passed by the Court in E.O.P. No. 4 of 2020. 12. The respondent No. 4 herein further contended that before conducting elections to the Executive Body of Church Council, it is a general practice that the Secretary of the Church Council will make announcement on 3 Sunday Worship Services continuously intimating all the members concerned about the proposed conduct of elections on the date as fixed by the Church Council and thereafter on the proposed date, the Elections will be conducted. As can be seen from the petition averments in E.O.P. No. 1 of 2022, before conduct of elections to the Executive Body of the Church Council, a prior intimation to all the members of the Church have been given by way of making 3 continuous announcements in the Church on Sunday Worship Services i.e., on 16.02.2020, 23.02.2020 and 01.03.2020. 13. The respondent No. 4 herein further prayed that his name may be deleted/excluded as respondent No. 4 in the cause title in E.O.P. No. 1 of 2022, as she was not physically present or contested or participated in the elections stated to have been conducted on 12.03.2022. Thus, as per the averments of the counter filed by the respondent No. 4 elections have not been held on 12.03.2022 as alleged by the revision petitioner. 14. As can be seen from the cause title, the revision petitioner herein has furnished his occupation as General Secretary of Centenary Mennonite Brethren Church @ MB Church. Even in the cause title shown in the present Civil Revision Petition, the Revision Petitioner herein has claimed himself to be General Secretary of Centenary Mennonite Brethern Church @ MB Church. But as per the version of the respondent Nos.1 to 4, the Executive Body of the Church Council elected on 07.03.2020 is still continuing and as per the list of members of Executive Body elected on 07.03.2020 the Secretary is J.J. Raj Kumar. But as per the version of the respondent Nos.1 to 4, the Executive Body of the Church Council elected on 07.03.2020 is still continuing and as per the list of members of Executive Body elected on 07.03.2020 the Secretary is J.J. Raj Kumar. Thus, in such circumstances, the question of revision petitioner herein being elected as General Secretary of Church is appearing to be ambiguous. When the elections alleged to have taken place on 12.03.2022 were not in accordance with the procedure as per the general practice of the Church, the question of revision petitioner being elected as General Secretary of Church is also appearing to be suspicious. 15. As stated supra, the pleadings on behalf of the petitioners in E.O.P. No. 1 of 2022, there is no averment that the term of self declared elected body would expire on 12.03.2024, hence, the question of cause of action seizing to exist by afflux of time does not arise. 16. The other question that is raised before the Court is the name of the church i.e., whether it is India Mennonite Brethren Church (IMB Church) or whether it is MB Church or Centenary Mennonite Brethren Church @ MB Church. As per the certificate of registration and Memorandum of Society submitted by the respondent No. 4 herein, the name of the church registered vide registration No. 430 of 2016 is India Mennonite Brethren Church (IMB Church). However, it is pertinent to note that the name of the Church can be adjudicated in the final order that is going to be passed in E.O.P. No. 1 of 2022 after full fledged trial. 17. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the case before the trial is coming up for the evidence of respondents in E.O.P. No. 1 of 2022 and at that junction the petition is filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed to dismiss the E.O.P. No. 1 of 2022 as it has become infructuous. 18. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the trial Court ought to have seen that the main and crucial question as to whether in terms of the prayer of respondent Nos.1 to 3, the society can function beyond 12.03.2024. 18. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the trial Court ought to have seen that the main and crucial question as to whether in terms of the prayer of respondent Nos.1 to 3, the society can function beyond 12.03.2024. As stated supra, the self declared elected body alleged to have been elected on 12.03.2022 i.e., during the continuance of tenure of previous elected executive body (in view of resolution dated 06.03.2022), which is under challenge in E.O.P. No. 4 of 2020, as such, the question of newly elected body coming into existence and expiry of term of such self declared elected body, does not arise. 19. It is pertinent to note that the main election OP is filed not only for declaring the self elected body as null and void but also to grant permanent injunction restraining the respondent Nos.3 to 24 from interfering with the administrative activities of the society under the guise of self declared elected body of respondent Nos.3 to 24 dated 12.03.2022. Therefore, merely because the cause of action in OP has been expired as alleged by the respondents, it cannot be said that the main election petition has become infructuous. On one hand, the contention of the petitioners in the main election petition is that they are continuing as members of the Society in view of resolution dated 06.03.2022 and on the other hand, it is the contention of the respondents in the main election petition that after expiry of term of previous executive body, they have been elected in view of elections held on 12.03.2022. Thus, as per the version of both sides, there are two executive bodies in existence. It is to be seen that the members of alleged self declared elected body during their tenure might have taken some decisions on behalf of the society and the validity or otherwise of such decisions depends upon the procedure adopted by them in constituting newly elected executive body. Whether the members of alleged self declared elected body have taken any such decisions and if so, whether such decisions are in the interest of society or not has to be dealt in the main election petition. Whether the members of alleged self declared elected body have taken any such decisions and if so, whether such decisions are in the interest of society or not has to be dealt in the main election petition. Whether the alleged self declared elected body was constituted as per the procedure or not; whether the newly self declared elected body has taken any decisions either in the interest of society or against the interest of the society; whether the previous elected executive body is continuing despite expiry of their term or a new self elected body has taken over the charge and whether the respondent Nos.3 to 24 i.e., members of such self declared elected body are interfering with the administrative activities of the society under the guise of self declared elected body are the triable questions that can be adjudicated only after full fledged trial. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that main election petition has become infructuous. 20. Furthermore, in M/s. Puri Investments v. M/s. Young Friends and Company and Others, Civil Appeal No. 1609 of 2022 and Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6516/2019, decided on 23.02.2022 the Apex Court observed as under: “13. There was no perversity in the order of the Appellate Tribunal on the basis of which the High Court could have interfered. In our view, the High Court tested the legality of the order of the Tribunal through the lens of an appellate body and not as a supervisory Court in adjudicating the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This is impermissible. The finding of the High Court that the appellate forum’s decision was perverse and the manner in which such finding was arrived at was itself perverse.” 21. In view of the above facts and circumstances and considering the principle laid down in the above said decision, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court has exercised its discretionary power in passing the impugned order and moreover, the revision petitioners/plaintiffs failed to establish that the impugned order passed by the trial Court suffers from irregularity or infirmity. In such circumstances, this Court cannot interfere with the findings of the trial Court by exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 22. In such circumstances, this Court cannot interfere with the findings of the trial Court by exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 22. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 23. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.