THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.Nos.2007 and 2012 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions arise out of orders, dated 30.04.2010 in I.A.Nos.1204 and 1205 of 2010, respectively, in P.S.R.O.P.No.639 of 2010. The parties are common in both the revisions. The sole respondent herein filed the O.P., under Section 23 of the A.P. Public Societies Registration Act, in the Court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for the reliefs of (a) declaration that the action of the petitioners herein in notifying the elections of the 1st petitioner herein without preparing, finalizing and circulating the AGM report for the year 2009-2010 and valid voters list is illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires; and (b) to appoint a “suitable person” to conduct the elections of the office bearers for the ensuing year by publishing the list of valid voters within ten days from the date of election. The respondent has also filed I.A.No.1205 of 2010 with a prayer to restrain the members and chairman of the 2nd petitioner or anybody on their behalf from issuing any notifications for convening the annual general body meeting and from holding the elections etc. I.A.No.1204 of 2010 was filed with a prayer to direct the 2nd petitioner not to withdraw any funds in cash or otherwise without prior permission of the general body or the trial Court. Notices were ordered by the trial Court. On finding that the petitioners herein did not enter appearance, they were set ex parte on 23.04.2010. On the same day, an order of status quo was passed in both the applications. The petitioners entered appearance and filed applications under Order IX Rule 7 C.P.C. They were taken up on 27.04.2010 and the matter was adjourned to 30.04.2010. The interim order passed on 23.04.2010 was extended. On 30.04.2010, the trial Court allowed the applications filed by the petitioners and the order, dated 23.04.2010, setting them ex parte was set aside. I.As. were directed to be listed for hearing on 02.06.2010. On a memo filed by the respondent, the interim order passed on 23.04.2010 was extended. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the extension of the order of status quo. Heard Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vedula Venkata Raman, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. The short point that arises for consideration is, as to whether the trial Court was justified in extending the order of status quo, even after allowing the applications filed by the petitioners under Order IX Rule 7 C.P.C. The trial Court was not inclined to pass ex parte orders in the I.As., straight away. It has chosen to issue notices. On 23.04.2010, the petitioners herein were called absent and they were set ex parte. It was on that day that the order of status quo was granted till 27.04.2010. On the next date of hearing, the petitioners promptly appeared and filed applications under Order IX Rule 7 C.P.C. Those applications were allowed, on 30.04.2010. Had the petitioners been set ex parte,, during the subsistence of order of status quo, mere setting aside of the order setting them ex parte, would not have affected the continuance of the order of status quo. It is a matter of record that the order of status quo was passed, after the petitioners were set ex parte. Once that order was set aside, the Court was under obligation to hear them, before the status quo orders were extended further. The extended order of status quo has also lapsed, since it was not extended thereafter. Hence, the C.R.Ps. are allowed, and the orders under revisions are set aside. The trial Court is directed to dispose of I.A.Nos.1204 and 1205 of 2010 as early as possible, preferably within a period of two weeks from today. If any urgent orders are needed, even before the I.As., are disposed of, it shall be open to the respondent to make a request to the trial Court and the same shall be considered on its own merits. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:06.07.2010 Note: Furnish C.C. tomorrow. (B/o) GJ