THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.Nos.3389 and 3510 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Both these revisions are filed against the order, dated 20.03.2009 passed in I.A.No.1279 of 2008 in O.P.No.786 of 2008 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. The first petitioner-Society filed O.P.No.786 of 2008 for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction. Along with the O.P., it filed I.A.No.1279 of 2008 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking to grant ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the activities of the first petitioner society and its organizations in any manner including alienation of the properties of the society as well as operation of the bank accounts lying with State Bank of India, Sambalpur, Orissa with A/c.No.01100005021 and State Bank of India, Main Branch, Visakhapatnam with A/c.No.01000/005074. 3 . According to the petitioners, the first respondent established the Society in the year 1989 to render services and support the poor, orphans, widows and old age people and was acted as President of the Society till 1998. Thereafter, the second petitioner, who is the brother of the first respondent, was elected as President of the Society in a General body meeting conducted on 24.10.1998 at Adoni and since then, he has been running the Society. The Society has two Bank Accounts with the State Bank of India, Sambalpur, Orissa with A/c.No.01100005021 and State Bank of India, Main Branch, Visakhapatnam with A/c.No.01000/005074. While so, the respondents are trying to alienate the petition schedule properties to the third parties and to divert the funds to the political party established by the first respondent under the name and style ‘Praja Shanthi’. Hence, the petitioners filed the said OP along with I.A.No.1279 of 2008. 4. The first respondent filed counter-affidavit denying all the allegations made in the petition. It is stated that he established two societies in India and another Society in United States of America. He raised funds by way of giving lectures and collecting funds and sent them to both Societies in India. The second petitioner, being his brother, was entrusted with the work of acquiring some properties. The second petitioner not only falsified the accounts but also forged the signatures of the first respondent and acquired huge properties in the name of his wife and other relatives at Visakhapatnam and Hyderabad. He alleged that to suppress the said facts, the second petitioner filed suits against the first respondent with false allegations. He denied the allegation that the second petitioner has been elected as President of the Society on 24.10.1998. He stated that no elections were conducted to the society and he is only the President of the first petitioner society. Therefore, he is entitled to deal with the properties of the society including the alienation of the same in order to safeguard the society. 5. The trial Court, on elaborate consideration of the material on record, observing that there is possibility of diverting the funds of the society by the first respondent for political gain and there is also failure on the part of the second petitioner in showing his bona fides and genuineness in maintaining the financial affairs of the society and due maintenance of its accounts, directed both parties to maintain status quo with regard to alienation of the petition schedule properties till disposal of the O.P. and dismissed the petition insofar as operation of the Bank Accounts is concerned. Aggrieved by the same, the present revisions have been filed by both the parties. 6. Heard both the counsel. 7. Sri K.Lakshmi Narasimha, learned senior counsel, representing on behalf of the first petitioner-Society, vehemently contended that the Court below having held that the first petitioner is alone managing the affairs of the Society, erred in granting injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the properties of the Society. He further contended that though the Court below held that there is possibility of diverting the funds of the Society for political gain, also erred in granting injunction in respect of operation of the Bank accounts. He produced the statement of Bank account and a certificate, dated 21.10.2009, issued by the State Bank of India that the account is being operated by Sri K. David Raju, Vice President, the second petitioner herein, along with one S.S.Babu Rao, vide resolution, dated 24.09.1996, but the first respondent in order to divert the funds to the political party, is interfering with the activities of the Society. He contended that in the interest of the Society and for its smooth running, some amount is required. Hence, he prays to grant injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the operation of the said Bank accounts. 8. Per contra, Sri R.Raghunandan, learned counsel for the first respondent, contended that the first respondent is the founder President of the Society from the date of its institution and that the second petitioner being his brother acted as Vice President and is continuing as such. He contended that no general body meeting was conducted on 24.10.1998 and the alleged documents are all forged as the members, who affixed their signatures on the resolution, have filed an affidavit that they have not affixed their signatures. He further contended that the first respondent being the founder President of the Society is entitled to deal with the properties of the Society. 9. Having heard the rival contentions of both the learned counsel at length and in view of serious repercussions, if any order is passed in these revisions, which would have effect on the order that may be passed in the main O.P., I am not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the validity or otherwise of the alleged documents. 10. Hence, both the civil revision petitions are dismissed. However, the Court below is directed to dispose of the O.P., expeditiously, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, status quo existing as on today shall be maintained insofar as operation of the Bank accounts is concerned. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:18.12.2009 Note:Issue CC forthwith. (Bo) sj