( 1 ) IN this revision, the petitioners, who are the plaintiffs, are aggrieved against the proceedings under the docket order dated 27-8-2001 in I. A. No. 740 of 2001 and other applications in O. S. No. 21 of 2001 on the file of the Additional District Judge at cuddapah.

( 2 ) HEARD Smt. N. Shoba, the learned counsel for the petitioners and sri B. Narayana Reddy, learned Counsel who, on filing of caveat, takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

( 3 ) THE case of the petitioners is that they have filed the present suit for a declaration against the respondents herein that the certificate bearing Registration No. 685 of 1999 dated 3-8-1999 issued in favour of the defendant No. 1, a society, by the District registrar (Registration and Stamps) cuddapah is not valid, opposed to the provisions under the Societies Registration act and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants in any way acting with the institution and the properties. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs had filed an application for consequential injunction pending the suit in I. A. No. 740 of 2001 wherein the Court below has granted ex parte ad interim injunction on 7-8-2001.

( 4 ) AFTER notice, the respondents herein have filed application in I. A. No. 748 of 2001 for vacating the said interim orders. Meanwhile, the petitioners have also filed another application in I. A. No. 741 of 2001 under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil procedure seeking appointment of commissioner to take possession of account books. There is also another application in i. A. NO. 744 of 2001 filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs seeking directions to the advocate-Commissioner to break open the locks. Consequently, the defendants have also filed an application in I. A. No. 745 of 2001 for withdrawal of the warrant as issued in i. A. NO. 741 of 2001.

( 5 ) WITH these steps in the suit, now the petitioners objection is that the defendant no. 1-institution is not properly represented. The defendant No. l being a society should be properly represented and its interest be protected accordingly. The main dispute is as against the defendant No. 7 and the representation being made through the power of attorney on his behalf. All other defendants are office bearers of defendant no. 1 society.

( 6 ) THE contention of the petitioners is that the objection raised is that there is no proper appearance or representation on behalf of the defendants especially the defendant No. 7, and the said objection has to be decided first as a preliminary issue but however, the court below is insisting for hearing of the interim applications together. According to the petitioners, as stated by the learned counsel appearing on their behalf, since the objection raised in regard to the representation goes to the root of the case, the merits cannot be gone into at this stage without getting over the said hurdle.

( 7 ) SRI B. Narayana Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that there is already a General Power of Attorney executed by the defendant No. 7 in favour of one Abdul Hameed Khan Niazi under a registered document No. 64 of 2000 and there is due representation on behalf of the said defendant also with the other defendants. It is the case of the respondents-defendants that the raising of this objection and insisting for a decision before the merits are gone into is nothing but a device to delay and protract the proceedings especially after obtaining the ex pane interim orders.

( 8 ) IN support of the petitioners claim, reliance is placed on the decision of the apex court in T. K. Lathika v. Sethi Karsandas jamnadas wherein the apex Court considering the provisions of the Kerala rent Control Act, which imposes a ban on the landlord from applying for eviction of the tenant before the expiry of the moratorium period of a year and the objection raised with respect thereto, held that the High Court should have decided the question as to the maintainability of the p