THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1664 of 2011 Dated: 8-07-2011 Oral Order: This revision is against the order dated 25-2-2011 of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam rejecting I.A.No. 1160 of 2010 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for temporary injunction restraining respondents 1 to 3, their men and agents from causing obstruction to the Managing Committee of the 2nd petitioner society, on the basis of the assertion by the revision petitioners-applicants to have been duly elected on 10-3-2010 to the managing Committee of the Society which was reconstituted on 10-7-2010, and to restrain the respondents from holding office and discharging functions as President, Secretary and Treasurer of the 2nd petitioner society including in operating Co- operative bank accounts and dealing with the matters pertaining to admissions, appointment and administration of Dr. L.B.College. The revision petitioners had filed EOP No. 939 of 2010 under Section 21 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 for a declaration, that pursuant to the general body meeting on 21-2-2010, the 1st revision petitioner and others were elected to the Managing Committee of the 2nd petitioner society on 10-3-2010; that the Committee was reconstituted on 10-7-2010 due to the exigency of one of the elected members demitting Office; that the respondents are de facto continuing in management without election; that in the circumstances they are entitled to run the affairs of the institution; and for a declaration that the list of Managing Committee members allegedly sent by the respondents to the Registrar of Societies for being recorded as elected Management Committee, is null and void. Admittedly the respondents are in de facto management of the 2nd respondent society and are managing the affairs of the society since long; according to the revision petitioners, since no elections have taken place since, 1992; when according to the petitioners, elections took place. The revision petitioners application for interim injunction and for the specific relief adverted to above, was rejected by the order impugned on the principal ground that there is no valid material on record at the interlocutory stage to infer that a regular Management Committee was duly elected and constituted on 10-3-2010 as pleaded by the revision petitioners and since the respondents were admittedly running the affairs of the society since long, it would not be prudent or expedient to restrain them from functioning, particularly as administration and management of the several colleges functioning under the control of the 2nd petitioner society, where the academic future of a large number of students is involved would be affected and the purposes for which the 2nd petitioner society is engendered would be jeopardised. This Court, on the admitted and apparent factual scenario finds no revisional error in the order of the court below, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners would strenuously contend that as the respondents herein are allegedly managing the 2nd petitioner college without lawful authority to do so and since the petitioners claim that in the elections held on 10-3-2010 a duly elected Management Committee was entitled to manage the affairs of the 2nd petitioner society; and since this court is disinclined to interfere with the order of the court below declining to interfere and to grant interim injunction, the Court of the learned II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam be directed to expeditiously dispose of EOP No. 939 of 2010 within a time-frame and the final determination in the EOP be directed to be recorded. This Court is not inclined to fix a specific time-frame for trial and judgment in EOP No. 939 of 2010, having regard to a substantive pendency in the court below. However, having regard to the fact that the management of the 2nd petitioner society, which is running numerous colleges is in issue in EOP No. 939 of 2010 and any uncertainty in the composition of the Management Committee would destabilize the efficacy of the society and aggect the academic future of a large number of students studying in the colleges administrated by the 2nd petitioner society, the learned II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam is requested to consider expeditious disposal of EOP No. 939 of 2010. With the observations above and in the light of the substantive relief being declined, the revision is dismissed at the stage of admission. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 8th July, 2011. GRR