ORDER : (PER: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. This writ petition is filed praying this Court to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other order or direction quashing registration of respondent No.1-Trust by respondent No.2 at Registration No. OTHER LANGUAGE/1043/2011-12 produced at Annexure-K and issue any other writ or direction or order. 3. The main contention in this petition is that on 28.02.1979 the petitioner-Trust was registered with the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belagavi at Registration No.E-494(BGM). Revappa Hanjappa Lamani who represents as Chairman in the present petition was elected as the Chairman of the petitioner-Trust on 17.08.2003. The respondent-Ramappa Pandappa Pammar who claims to be the Chairman of respondent No.1-Trust along with two others filed a suit against the petitioner-Trust, its Chairman and Managing Committee members in O.S.No.5/2008 before the Court of Principal District Judge, Belagavi on 24.09.2008. The said Court rejected I.A.No.II for temporary injunction but allowed I.A.No.III for appointment of Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Belagavi as Receiver to manage the petitioner-Trust and its institutions vide order dated 26.07.2010. It is also contended that respondent who claims to be the Chairman of the petitioner-Trust filed Miscellaneous Petition No.195/2010 before the Court of Principal District Judge, Belagavi on 02.08.2010. 4. The petitioner-Trust aggrieved by the order dated 26.07.2010 passed by the Principal District Judge, Belagavi on I.A.No.III in O.S.No.5/2008, preferred an appeal before this Court in MFA No.23602/2010 and this Court stayed the order dated 02.09.2010 passed by the Principal District Judge, Belagavi on I.A.No.III in O.S.No.5/2008 until further orders vide order dated 20.10.2010. It is also contended that the Principal District Judge, Belagavi allowed the Miscellaneous Petition No.195/2010 vide order dated 20.07.2011. The said order was also challenged by filing CRP No.1123/2011 before this Court. It is also contended that the said respondent submitted an application to respondent No.2 to register the respondent No.1-Trust under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1960’ for brevity) on 02.01.2012 and the same was registered and this Court also granted interim stay of the order dated 20.07.2011 passed by the Principal District Judge in Misc.Petition No.195/2010 for a period of three months in CRP No.1123/2011. 5. 5. Counsel for the petitioner would also vehemently contend in this petition that the alleged Chairman of respondent No.1 himself had filed O.S.No.5/2008 before the Court of Principal District Judge, Belagavi against the Chairman of the petitioner-Trust and others to declare that the Chairman of petitioner-Trust namely Revappa Hanjappa Lamani and six others have no right to act as Trustees of the petitioner-Trust and to appoint new Trustees in their place. It is contended that once the order was passed on I.A.No.III was stayed by this Court, he ought not to have filed an application for registration of respondent-Trust. It is also contended that respondent No.2 failed to note that petitioner-Trust is already in existence. Hence, another Trust cannot be created in the same name, same address and same aims and objects. 6. It is also contended that on receipt of the application from the respondent for registration of respondent No.1-Trust, it should have invited objections from the public and also given notice to the Chairman of the petitioner-Trust and other Trustees and ought to have given an opportunity of being heard. Respondent No.2 also failed to note that the respondent himself has filed a miscellaneous petition without making any of the original Trustees as parties to the proceedings and obtained an order behind the back of the petitioner-Trust and the said order was also questioned and order was also set aside. It is also contended that respondent No.2 after receiving the application and before permitting, should have notified the petitioner-Trust and also followed the procedure contemplated under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act of 1960 and Rule 3 of Karnataka Societies Registration Rules, 1961. 7. It is further contended that respondent No.2 did not perform its obligation and hence registration of respondent No.1-Trust by respondent No.2 is illegal and liable to be cancelled. It is also contended that respondent No.2 on the very same day in a lightning speed, registered respondent No.1-Trust by throwing all the provisions of the law to the wind and without any other objections, filed the present writ petition seeking the relief of writ in the nature of certiorari. 8. Counsel for the petitioner also brought to notice of this Court the very proviso of Section 7 of Act of 1960 and contends that no society shall be registered by a name which, in the opinion of the Registrar, is undesirable. 8. Counsel for the petitioner also brought to notice of this Court the very proviso of Section 7 of Act of 1960 and contends that no society shall be registered by a name which, in the opinion of the Registrar, is undesirable. A name which is identical with, or too nearly resembles, the name by which a society in existence has been previously registered, may be deemed to be undesirable by the Registrar under this section. 9. Counsel would also vehemently contend that the very registration of the Trust is against the law. In support of his argument, he relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in W.P.No.80849/2012 decided on 13.02.2014 and brought to notice of this Court the observation made in paragraph No.5 extracting Section 7 of the Act of 1960 and held that the petitioner-society is subsequently registered society in the year 2007-08 under the very name and it is not open for the authorities to register the same in an identical name and cancelled the same. 10. Counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in W.P.No.17533/2021 connected with W.P.No.22023/2021 decided on 17.10.2022 and brought to notice of this Court the discussion made in respect of Section 7 as well as 27 and contends that what would unmistakably emerge is that registration of the 3rd respondent/Association runs foul of the mandate of Section 7 of the Act, as both the Associations are not too nearly similar but are virtually same. Once a Society is registered with a particular name, registration of a second Society with the same name is impermissible. Section 27 of the Act makes acts to be unlawful activity only after the registration of the Society. The Legislature in its wisdom has not made pre-registration acts an offence and allowed the writ petition and quashed the order impugned therein and comes to the conclusion that registration of respondent No.3/Association is illegal. 11. Counsel in support of his argument, has also produced the original register along with a memo and contends that the very contention of the respondent that in the resolution dated 17.08.2003 three persons of Trust were not alive, cannot be accepted and brought to notice of this Court that respondent himself is a signatory to the said resolution and now he cannot find fault with the same. Counsel would also contend that though one of the Trustees name was mentioned in the resolution, but he had not signed and hence the contention that resolution is passed by including dead person cannot be accepted. It is contended that the respondent cannot blow hot and cold being a party to the resolution dated 17.08.2003. 12. Per contra, counsel for the respondent would vehemently contend that the averments made in the petition are not correct and detail statement of objections are filed and in the objections, it is contended that the present petition in the form for quashing of the registration of the Trust is not maintainable and the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the present petition. As such, the very petition itself requires to be dismissed as not maintainable. 13. It is contended that the original Trust was registered on 28.02.1979 and there were eight Trustees including the Chairman. Thereafter, in the year 1979 certain changes in the members/Trustees came to be effected and the same was approved by the Charity Commissioner in Enquiry No.372/1979, wherein three Trustees were removed and in their place three new members were appointed. Subsequently, again during the year 1988, there was further change in the constitution and co-opted some other Trustees and reconstituted the Trust. One Durgappa Neelannavar was the Chairman and Revappa Hanjappa Lamani was the Vice Chairman. Further, it is contended that when the Trustees started to act prejudicially to the interest of the Trust on account of highhanded attitude of the Trustee Revappa Hanjappa Lamani who started to misuse the Trust funds for his personal use and on account of the same there was a rift between the Trust Chairman and Durgappa Neelannavar and Revappa Hanjappa Lamani. Thereafter, the said Revappa Hanjappa Lamani highhandedly started to claim and conduct himself as the Chairman of the Trust and ultimately after the death of Chairman, Durgappa Neelannavar during the year 2003, the said Revappa Hanjappa Lamani illegally declared himself as the Chairman of the Trust by creating false and fabricated documents of the General Body Meeting of the Trust Committee member on 17.08.2003. 14. It is contended that under these circumstances, in the meanwhile three Trustees died and one Trustee resigned from the committee and produced death certificates of three Trustees as Annexures-R.1 to R.3. 14. It is contended that under these circumstances, in the meanwhile three Trustees died and one Trustee resigned from the committee and produced death certificates of three Trustees as Annexures-R.1 to R.3. It is also contended that in view of illegal activities and mismanagement of the public Trust, respondent No.1 herein filed a suit in O.S.No.5/2008 and an order was also passed for appointing the DDPI, Belagavi as Receiver for management of respondent No.1-Trust and the said order was also challenged in MFA and the same was stayed. It is also contended that the meeting was convened on 16.05.2010 and decided to co-opt new members as Trustees against the vacant posts and it was unanimously resolved to co-opt the members as Trustees and accordingly reported the change and reconstitution of the committee of Trustees to the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belagavi for its approval. Accordingly, the committee resolved to delete the names of expired and resigned members and in their place co-opted and added 4 members as co-opted Trustees and accordingly newly reconstituted Trustees committee stood. The resolution dated 16.05.2010 passed by the Trustee committee is marked as Annexure-R4. 15. It is also contended that the claim made by original petitioner and present applicant is only on correction of document. Respondent No.2 after conducting an enquiry as required under the provisions of the Act and Rules, therein registered respondent No.1-Trust and approved its by-laws and management committee and the same is produced as Annexure-R5. The DDPI, Belagavi has made report on 07.10.2013 to the Commissioner of Public Instructions, Dharwad thereby clearly stating that there are no documents to show that Revappa Hanjappa Lamani was ever appointed as Chairman of Krantiveer Sangolli Rayanna, Residential High School Trust and copy of the report is also marked as Annexure-R6. Counsel has also produced copy of the order passed by this Court in CRP.No.1123/2011 decided on 08.10.2021 as Annexure- R7. 16. Counsel would vehemently contend that Annexures-R1, 2 and 3 are very clear that Annexure-D resolution consists names of dead persons i.e. R.H.Lamani, who passed away on 04.08.2003 and so also D.B.Madar, who passed away on 20.08.1992 and D.Y.Chalawadi, who died on 10.03.1999 and hence it is clear that the resolution dated 17.08.2003 is created one and dead person cannot participate in the said resolution. Counsel also relied upon Annexures-R1, 2 and 3 which are the death certificates of the said persons. Counsel also relied upon Annexures-R1, 2 and 3 which are the death certificates of the said persons. Counsel would also vehemently contend that after the repeal of the BPT Act and consequent upon communication of Education Department dated 07.10.2013 as per Annexure-R6, an application was filed and got registered the Trust and hence cannot find fault with the registration of the Trust. 17. Counsel would also contend that immediately after the repealment of BPT Act, the respondent has followed the procedure and filed an application and got registered the Trust. Counsel also relied upon judgment of this Court passed in W.P.No.101436/2018 connected with other writ petitions and brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.12, wherein specific point for consideration was framed by this Court and discussion was made with regard to the scope and effect of Sections 3 and 7 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable and Religious Trust Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1920’ for brevity) and to what institutions was the BPT Act applicable and what is the effect of repeal of the BPT Act and whether on the repeal of the BPT Act, the Trust registered under the said Act, would have to be registered under the Act of 1920 or under the Act of 1960. 18. Counsel also brought to notice of this Court the discussion made by this Court in paragraph Nos.17 and 18, wherein while answering point No.4 it has been discussed as to what is the effect of repeal of the BPT Act and the counsel contends that the Court comes to the conclusion that Trust is not carrying out any charitable or religious act but it is carrying out educational activity and hence Act of 1920 would not be applicable since the aims and objects will not come within the mandate of Act of 1920. Counsel would also contend that while answering point No.5 this Court had discussed in detail and comes to the conclusion that the education institution ought to have been registered under the Act of 1960. Hence, he prays this Court to dismiss the writ petition. 19. Counsel would also contend that while answering point No.5 this Court had discussed in detail and comes to the conclusion that the education institution ought to have been registered under the Act of 1960. Hence, he prays this Court to dismiss the writ petition. 19. Having heard the petitioner’s counsel and the counsel for respondent No.1 and considering the material on record, Annexures as well as respective oral submissions and also the citations which have been relied upon by the respective counsels, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: i. Whether this Court can issue a writ of certiorari or any other direction or order quashing the registration of respondent No.1-Trust in terms of Annexure-K? ii. What order? 20. Having considered the grounds which have been urged in the writ petition and the relief as sought and also the contentions of the petitioner’s counsel and the counsel for respondent No.1, this Court has to mention the admitted facts. Both the petitioner as well as respondent No.1 do not dispute the fact that originally a Trust, in the name of Krantiveer Sangolli Rayanna Residential High School Trust, Nehru Nagar, Belagavi was registered by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belagavi under the provisions of the BPT Act. There were eight Trustees to manage the affairs of the Trust originally and the said Trust was registered on 28.02.1979. It is also not in dispute in view of the contentions of the both the counsels that in the year 1979 certain changes in the member Trustees came to be effected wherein the original petitioner in this petition Revappa Hanjappa Lamani was inducted as Trustee of the said Trust in Enquiry No.372/79. It is also not in dispute that during the year 1989 further change was made in respect of constitution of Trustees Committee reporting appointment of Durgappa Neelannavar as Trust Chairman and Revappa Hanjappa Lamani as Vice Chairman in Enquiry No.601/89. It is also not in dispute that the Chairman was passed away and resolutions were passed on 10.08.2003 and 17.08.2003 and the said resolutions were passed as the original petitioner in this petition was the Chairman and he led the Trust meeting and he was elected as Chairman, but the respondent No.1 disputed the resolution dated 17.08.2003. 21. It is also not in dispute that the Chairman was passed away and resolutions were passed on 10.08.2003 and 17.08.2003 and the said resolutions were passed as the original petitioner in this petition was the Chairman and he led the Trust meeting and he was elected as Chairman, but the respondent No.1 disputed the resolution dated 17.08.2003. 21. It is important to note that in the said resolution as per the original resolution book, respondent No.1 was one of the invitee for the said meeting and he also attested the said resolution dated 17.08.2003. It is also important to note that thereafter also several meetings were held on 07.09.2003, 09.10.203, 23.10.2003, 03.11.2003, 30.06.2004, 18.07.2004, 08.08.2004, 14.11.2004, 27.02.2005, 15.05.2005, 02.06.2005, 11.09.2005, 20.11.2005, 22.01.2006, 26.02.2006, 22.04.2006 and 28.05.2006. In all these meetings, respondent No.1 has also participated and he attested signature in terms of original resolution book produced along with the memo by the petitioner’s counsel. It is also not in dispute that differences arisen between the petitioner and respondent No.1 in 2008 and till then no dispute and respondent No.1 had filed a suit in O.S.No.5/2008 contending that there is illegal activities and mismanagement of public Trust and in the said suit it is questioned that the original petitioner and others were illegally claiming to be Trustees and sought for an order of injunction against the petitioner and others from acting as the Chairman and Trustees of respondent No.1-Trust. It is also not in dispute that that temporary injunction was sought in the said suit and the same was rejected vide order on I.A.No.II. However, the Trial Court granted an order by allowing I.A.No.III wherein prayer of the plaintiff was considered for appointment of the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Belagavi as receiver to manage the petitioner-Trust and its institutions vide order dated 26.07.2010. 22. It is also the contention of the petitioner that MFA No.23602/2010 was filed and order passed on I.A.No.III in O.S.No.5/2008 was stayed by this Court vide order dated 20.10.2010 and subsequently the said MFA was also allowed. It is important to note that in the meanwhile, respondent No.1 claimed that he is the Chairman. 22. It is also the contention of the petitioner that MFA No.23602/2010 was filed and order passed on I.A.No.III in O.S.No.5/2008 was stayed by this Court vide order dated 20.10.2010 and subsequently the said MFA was also allowed. It is important to note that in the meanwhile, respondent No.1 claimed that he is the Chairman. On account of the meeting held on 16.05.2010 the members were co-opted and four members were as co-Trustees and thereafter respondent No.1 herein has approached the Principal District Judge, Belagavi by filing Misc.No.195/2010 invoking Section 92 of the CPC for approval of deletion of names of deceased and resigned members/Trustees and in addition approval of co-opted members and petitioner was also included in the Trust Committee. Misc.No.195/2010 was filed based on the said resolution dated 16.05.2010 and also prayer sought in the said petition was approval and the Principal District Judge vide order dated 18.11.2011 approved the prayer by allowing the said petition. 23. It is also the contention of respondent No.1 that they sought the relief before the Court in Miscellaneous Petition and the relief was granted. It is also not in dispute that the original petitioner in this petition along with two others have filed CRP No.1123/2011 challenging the order passed in Misc.No.195/2010 and this Court granted an order of stay and ultimately the said petition was allowed and set aside the order of the Principal District Judge, Belagavi and matter was remitted back to the District Court and the same is pending after the remand. 24. The main contention of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 would not have registered the Trust in the similar or identical name and hence the very registration is erroneous. He also contends that as per Section 7 of Act of 1960, no society shall be registered by a name which, in the opinion of the Registrar, is undesirable. Name of respondent No.1-Trust is exactly identical with name of petitioner-Trust which is in existence till today and the same has neither been dissolved nor has its registration cancelled. 25. This Court would like to refer Section 7 of the Act of 1960, which reads as under: “7. Societies not to be registered with undesirable names.- No society shall be registered by a name which, in the opinion of the Registrar, is undesirable. 25. This Court would like to refer Section 7 of the Act of 1960, which reads as under: “7. Societies not to be registered with undesirable names.- No society shall be registered by a name which, in the opinion of the Registrar, is undesirable. A name which is identical with, or too nearly resembles, the name by which a society in existence has been previously registered, may be deemed to be undesirable by the Registrar under this section.” 26. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon two judgments in support of his argument. As per the judgments passed by this Court in W.P.No.80849/2012 and W.P.No.17533/2021 referred to supra, it is clear that similar identical society cannot be registered. This Court in W.P.No.80849/2012 in para No.5 extracting Section 7 of the Act of 1960 held that it is clear that no society shall be registered by a name which is undesirable. A name which is identical with, or too nearly resembles the name by which a society already in existence has been previously registered, may be deemed to be undesirable by the Registrar. 27. In the case on hand also, I have already pointed out that there was no dispute with regard to the registration of earlier Trust and also it is important to note that the name of the original Trust is as Krantiveer Sangolli Rayanna Residential High School Trust and the present Trust is named as Krantiveer Sangolli rayanna Residential High School, Samstha. Except using of the word ‘Samstha’, both names are identical. The same is also registered on 02.01.2012, whereas the petitioner- original Trust was registered on 28.02.1979 itself and respondent No.1 also does not dispute the same but in the ingenious method got registered the Trust in 2012 based on resolution of 2010. 28. The other judgment in W.P.No.17533/2021 is also very clear and in para No.11 of the said judgment, it is held that association runs foul of the mandate of Section 7 of the Act, as both the associations are not too nearly similar but are virtually same. Once a society is registered with a particular name, registration of a second society with the same name is impermissible. The Court also held that Section 27 of the Act makes acts to be unlawful activity only after the registration of the society. The legislature in its wisdom has not made pre-registration acts an offence. Once a society is registered with a particular name, registration of a second society with the same name is impermissible. The Court also held that Section 27 of the Act makes acts to be unlawful activity only after the registration of the society. The legislature in its wisdom has not made pre-registration acts an offence. It is also observed that the manner of conduct of inquiry need not be gone into, as the very complaint registered and the order passed would run foul of Section 27 of the Act. Whether the inquiry has been conducted in consonance with the principles of natural justice or otherwise need not be gone into. In the result what would unmistakably emerge is the illegality of the 3rd respondent/association and illegal order passed cancelling registration of petitioner/association. 29. Having perused the reasoning given by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the above referred writ petitions which have been relied by the petitioner’s counsel and taking note of the very proviso of Section 7, when both the names are same, the same is not permissible under Section 7 of the Act and on that ground also the writ petition deserves to be allowed and there cannot be a similar association which is identical and same name has been used for registration of society. 30. It is also important to note that before registration of the Trust on 02.01.2012, the very respondent No.1 himself has filed a suit in O.S.No.5/2008 challenging the very act of Chairman and though contend that document at Annexure-D is created and there were name of some of the dead persons in the resolution, counsel for petitioner brought to notice of this Court that though their names have been mentioned, they have not signed the said resolution. Apart from that, it is also very clear that while selecting the original petitioner as Chairman, the respondent No.1 was also a party to the said resolution dated 17.08.2003 as he was invited as an invitee and he attested his signature to the resolution and admittedly differences were arisen in 2008 and he ultimately filed a suit, wherein no injunction was granted but receiver was appointed. The same was questioned before this Court. The same was questioned before this Court. An attempt is also made by filing Misc.No.195/2010 based on the resolution dated 16.05.2010 and an attempt was made to pass resolution and obtained an order and the said order was also set aside by this Court in CRP No.1123/2011 and matter is remitted back to District Court. Said issue is also pending in O.S.No.5/2008 before the Principal District Judge, Belagavi wherein a challenge is made by respondent No.1 and in spite of the challenging the same, adopted dubious method and subsequently an attempt was made to register the Trust in the similar name which is identical and the same is prohibited under Section 7 of the Act. 31. When there is dispute with regard to resolution dated 17.08.2003 under which the original petitioner was elected as Chairman and this Court has pointed out in subsequent to the said resolution also respondent No.1 has participated in all the proceedings till 2008 and an attempt was made to register the Trust behind the back of original petitioner and got it registered claiming that he is the elected Chairman and so also when the matter is seized before the Court in O.S.No.5/2008 and Misc.No.195/2010 is also pending consequent upon the order passed by this Court and issue with regard to who is the Chairman and who is having right to continue has to be decided before the Court in a suit filed by the respondent No.1 as he made allegation against the original petitioner and also it has to be noted that when the Misc.No.195/2010 was filed under Section 92 of CPC and along with petition separate plaint has to be filed seeking the relief of framing of scheme and the same is also not found in material and except seeking approval of the Committee Members through the Court and adopted a dubious method by respondent No.1 and matter requires to be adjudicated in O.S.No.5/2008 as well as Misc.No.195/2010 which is remitted back. 32. 32. Counsel for respondent No.1 also relied upon judgment of this Court with regard to registration of society is concerned in W.P.No.101436/2018 and no doubt counsel brought to notice of this Court points for consideration framed by this Court as well as answer made with regard to point No.4 as what is the effect of repeal of BPT Act since no dispute that BPT Act was repealed in 2003 and there could be the procedure and no dispute with regard to reasoning given by this Court is concerned but the method adopted by respondent No.1 in getting registered the Trust in spite of himself filing a suit as well as Misc. petition, this judgment will not come to the aid of respondent No.1. 33. The contention of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 ought not to have registered similar Trust and ought to have given notice and after holding enquiry and giving an opportunity ought to have exercised his power for registration of Trust/Association. When similar Trust was in existence in the same name, respondent No.2 ought not to have registered the Trust when the application was filed by respondent No.1. It is also contended that in a high speed on the very same day registered the Trust without holding inquiry and only based on the report of the Education Department registered the Trust, which cannot be a basis for registration of the Trust. 34. There is force in the contention of the petitioner’s counsel that registration of respondent No.1- Trust by respondent No.2 is in utter violation of principles of natural justice. When the similar Trust was already in existence, respondent No.2 after receiving an application, ought to have notified the Trust which was already in existence in the same name and also held an enquiry as contemplated under Sections 4, 6 and 7 of Act of 1960 and Rule 3 of Karnataka Society Registration Rules, 1961 but instead of that as contended by the petitioner, on the very same day when the application was filed, in a lightning speed registered respondent No.1- Trust/Association in non-compliance of Sections 4, 6 and 7 of Act of 1960 as well as Rule 3 of Karnataka Society Registration Rules, 1961 as well as Section 27 of the Act. Respondent No.2 while registering the similar Trust which is already in existence in the same name ought not to have registered the Trust as against the provisions of Section 7 of Act of 1960 and also respondent No.1-Trust is identical with the name of original Trust which is in existence. It is also important to note that the earlier Trust was not cancelled or dissolved. Apart from that, when respondent No.1 himself has approached the Civil Court by filing a suit in O.S.No.5/2008 and Misc.No.195/2010 ought not to have approached respondent No.2 and got an order by suppressing the fact that suit is pending before the Court. Hence, the petitioner has made out grounds to pass an order of writ of certiorari quashing registration made in the name of respondent No.1-Trust as per Annexure-K. 35. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is allowed. Registration of respondent No.1-Trust by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-K is quashed. The parties are given liberty to agitate their respective contentions before the competent forum with regard to their respective claim in the suit i.e. O.S.No.5/2008 filed by respondent No.1 as well as Misc.No.195/2010 filed by respondent No.1 and in any other forum in accordance with law. The registry is directed to return the original Register produced before the Court along with memo to the counsel for the petitioner.