C.R.P.M.P.No.927 of 2009 is filed by the respondent to vacate the order of status quo, dated 27.01.2009, granted in C.R.P.M.P.No.7366 of 2008 in C.R.P.No.5530 of 2008.

2. Likewise, the respondent filed C.R.P.M.P.No.929 of 2009 to vacate the order of status quo, dated 27.01.2009, granted in C.R.P.M.P.No.7376 of 2008 in C.R.P.No.5537 of 2008.

3. When these vacate applications were taken up for hearing, the counsel representing the parties made submissions at length in both the civil revision petitions and also further made a request for final disposal of the civil revision petitions themselves. Hence, these civil revision petitions are being disposed of finally by this Court.

4. Sri A.V. Sesha Sai, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner in both the civil revision petitions had taken this Court through the common order made by the learned Principal District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru, and would maintain that the learned Judge totally erred in granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondent and negativing the temporary injunction prayed for in favour of the petitioner in the respective O.Ps. The counsel also pointed out to the documents relied upon by the parties and further pointed out to Rule 5 (c) of the Rules governing the society and would maintain that the respondent submitted a false return to the District Registrar on 28.5.2008 regarding change of name of the Secretary-cum-Correspondent of the society by forging the signatures. The learned counsel also made elaborate submissions relating to Ex.B-17 and Ex.B-18 and would maintain that the learned Principal District Judge had not decided the impact of these documents in proper perspective, even otherwise these documents were not considered in elaboration. The counsel also would maintain that even as per Ex.B-1 memorandum it is clear that the petitioner has been the founder-secretary and continuous to be so and when specific stand had been taken relating to the forgery of signatures, this being a question of fact, inasmuch as at interlocutory stage it is not possible to decide the question to hold that respondent is having prima facie case or balance of convenience for granting temporary injunction, definitely cannot be sustained. A person who approaches the Court praying for temporary injunction may have to approach the Court with clean hands. Since the respondent approached the Court by suppressing the facts and with unclean hands, definitely he is not entitled to the relief of temporary injunction, which is an equitable relief. Even otherwise, the counsel would maintain that in relation to internal affairs of educational institutions, courts should be slow in making such orders. The counsel also would maintain that by virtue of the order made, the revision petitioner is not permitted to enter the premises at all and virtually he is being restrained even from acting as president. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the elaborate grounds raised in these civil revision petitions and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances if the court is satisfied that both the petitioner and respondent are not having strong prima facie case, it would be just and proper to entrust management to some committee to be constituted by this court or appropriate directions to be given in this regard for the purpose of smooth functioning of the educational institutions. The learned counsel also relied on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions.

.5. Per contra, Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel representing the respondent in both these civil revision petitions had taken this Court Through the contents of the order under challenge, the documents relied upon by the parties and would maintain that in the light of the material available on record, the learned Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, recorded appropriate findings and came to the conclusion that on the relevant day since the respondent had been act