THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.6172 of 2009 & 948 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions arise out of various orders passed in O.S.No.266 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa. The respondents herein filed the suit for a three-fold relief namely, (a) to declare that the Executive Committee of the 28th Diocesan Council of C.S.I.R.D. is null and void (b) to restrain the petitioners herein from functioning as the Officers of Diocesan Council and (c) to declare that defendant No.1-Bishop of the C.S.I.R.D. is disqualified to hold the Office. The suit was initially filed under Section 92 C.P.C. At a later point of time, the application filed under Section 92 C.P.C. was withdrawn. The trial Court passed certain interim orders and the petitioners herein had approached this Court at various stages. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents at length, it ultimately emerges that the reliefs claimed in ‘a’ and ‘b’ referred to above have become redundant, inasmuch as the period for which the Executive Committee of the Diocesan Council was elected had expired. So far as the relief in the form of declaration that defendant No.1 is not qualified to function as Bishop is concerned, it does not fit into the other reliefs claimed in the suit. The respondents have to seek remedy in a different set of proceedings, if they are so advised. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents submit that in view of the subsequent developments, the suit itself has become infructuous. In that view of the matter, the revisions are disposed of directing that: (i) O.S.No.266 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa shall stand dismissed as infructuous and all the interim orders passed therein shall stand dissolved; and (ii) It shall be open to the respondents herein to file a separate suit, if they are so advised, as regards the relief against the Bishop, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:15.04.2010 kdl