THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A.No.707 OF 2008 and C.R.P.No.2609 of 2008 Dated 21st August 2009 Between: CMA.707 of 2008 Mr.U.Joseph Reddy son of U.G.Reddy and others. …Petitioners and St.Joseph’s Educational Society And others. …Respondents CRP.2609 of 2008 Mr.U.Joseph Reddy son of U.G.Reddy and others. …Petitioners and St.Joseph’s Educational Society And others. …Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A.No.707 OF 2008 and C.R.P.No.2609 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Since both these proceedings are filed against a common order passed in two different applications, they are taken up together for disposal. Heard Sri Neeraja Sudhakar Reddy and Sri Ch.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and petitioners respectively and Sri B.Venkat Rama Rao and Sri A.K.Jaya Prakash Rao for the respondents. In the above appeal and the revision, the plaintiffs/petitioners are aggrieved against the orders dismissing an application purported to have filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure where they sought for a mandatory direction against the respondent/society not to take any policy decision pending the disposal of the appeal. The revision is filed against the order dismissing an application seeking for a mandatory direction not to induct new members. The facts in brief, which gave raise to the present proceedings are that the petitioners are the applicants in the OP.536/2008 in the Court below, which has been filed under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies and Registration Act 2001 where they sought for orders, firstly, to convene the General Body Meeting of the Society under the Chairmanship of advocate commissioner appointed by the Court, secondly, to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to hold such General Body Meeting, thirdly, to appoint a Receiver for managing the affairs of the respondent-society till proper decisions are taken, fourthly, to restrain the defendants from inducting new members, fifthly, to restrain the society from taking any policy decisions or major decisions prejudice to the affairs of the society, till the General Body Meeting is conducted and, lastly, to grant costs and other incidental reliefs. The main ground on which the said petition was filed was that there has been a total mismanagement in the entire affairs of the society and there is no rendering of accounts towards the amount collected for the purpose of fee. It is contended that no General Body Meeting is being conducted properly and there have been several objections in regard to the decisions taken in the last General Body Meeting held on 8-7-2007 and the said minutes are not being circulated. The petitioners are the members of the General Body and also of the governing council. In spite of their representations and pointing out these irregularities, misdeeds etc., no action has been taken and they are inducting fresh members without any proper procedure and entitlement. During the pendency of the above main petition, the petitioner has filed the present application purportedly under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C seeking for a mandatory direction to restrain the respondents from taking any major policy decisions. Similarly, in another application filed in I.A.1114/2008 the petitioner sought restrain against the respondents from inducting new members. Along with these applications, the respondents filed other interlocutory applications in I.A.Nos.2063, 2064 and 2065 of 2008 to dismiss the I.A. The applications were contested by the respondents herein denying the entire allegations made in the main O.P and as well as in the affidavit filed in support of these applications. It was their contention that there was no mismanagement or misdeeds as such and further the General Body Meetings are being convened regularly as per the bye-laws, and therefore, there is no warrant for any such directions. On consideration of these submissions from both sides and having regard to the nature of dispute involved where it requires a regular trial to go into the same and unless and until the proper findings are given in support of the petitioners herein, the Court below dismissed the application on the ground that it would virtually amounts to allowing the main OP without a finding on the allegations made by the petitioners. Hence, the revision. On considering the submissions made from both sides in detail and after perusal of the entire pleadings, the aspect which requires to be paid attention is whether on the facts and circumstances the petitioners or the appellants are entitled to the indulgence as sought for? There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioners are the members of the society and the main O.P itself is complaining against non-convening of General Body Meeting where several other allegations of mismanagement, misdeeds etc., are made and the same are being denied by the respondents. Further, it is their assertion that regular General Body Meetings are being conducted and there is no such mismanagement. Therefore, as rightly observed by the Court below all these allegations and counter allegations, if any, would require a probe into the same by considering the evidence produced from both sides in the course of trial. It would be too premature to come to any conclusion either way. Further, having regard to the nature of relief as sought for in the main O.P vis-à-vis the reliefs as sought in these applications, both run on the self-same lines and any order acceding thereto necessarily amount to allowing the very main O.P itself without a trial. It is well established that the Court should not grant any interim orders of injunction or otherwise either running on the self same lines as that of the main O.P or going far beyond. We are in entire agreement with the reasons given by the Court below and nothing further has been pointed out on behalf of the petitioners and appellant to show that there is any perversity or illegality in the order. In the circumstances, there are no merits either in the appeal or in the revision. Further, having regard to the discretion exercised by the Court below on a sound reasoning, there is no warrant to interfere or interdict under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For the foregoing reasons, both the Appeal and the Revision are dismissed. No costs. _______________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J __________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J DATE: 21-8-2009 grk