The respondent No.2 in I.A.No.17 of 2015 in E.O.P.No.1 of 2015 on the file of Vacation Civil Judge (District Judge), Nizamabad preferred this revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India (Constitution) challenging the ex parte ad-interim injunction dated 12-05-2015 by the Vacation Civil Judge (District Judge), Nizamabad. The respondents 1 and 2 herein were the petitioners and the present petitioner is the 2nd respondent in the main petition and they will be hereinafter referred as arrayed before the trial Court for convenience of reference.

The petitioners filed E.O.P No.1 of 2015 under Section 23 of Societies Registration Act and filed I.A.No.17 of 2015 for grant of ad-interim injunction, restraining the respondents 1 and 2 from holding election, complaining certain irregularities.

The specific allegations made in the affidavit filed by the respondents are that the petitioners are life members of the Society and the term of State Body, District Body, Mandal Level Bodies are for two years and that all the District Body members are the voters for the election of District body. All village and mandal elected members have to participate in the election of District. Mandal and City bodies have to be elected as per the bye-laws only. As per Rule-14 of Bye-laws of A.P.Arya Vysya Mahasabha, District Bye-Laws (Bye-laws), Mandal and City bodies will be expired on 30th November i.e. after expiry of three years. While the matter stood thus, the Mandal and City level bodies election was not completed. But without completing election of Mandal and City level members, the District Level Committees informed the Mandal and City level members have to participate in the election of District Level Committee. Thus, holding election of the District Level committee is irregular.

It is further contended that some of the members filed O.P.No.741 of 2015 on the file of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on similar ground and Chief Judge, City Civil Court passed interim injunction in I.A.No.743 of 2015.

Finally it is contended that the District Level Committees also facing similar problem as village, city bodies, as they are not formed. So far voters list is also not prepared by date. Hence holding of District Body Election by 13-05-2015 by respondent No.2 with the respondent No.3 and their associates is not proper and the same is null and void. Upon hearing the argument of counsel for the petitioners, the Vacation Civil Judge-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad passed expartead interim injunction dated 11-05-2015 restraining the respondents 2 and 3 from holding election for the District Body of Nizamabad.

Aggrieved by exparte ad-interim injunction order passed by the Vacation Civil Judge, Nizamabad, the present Revision is preferred under Article 227 of Constitution raising several contentions. The major contentions are that when the election process is commenced, it cannot be stopped by granting any interim injunction. It is further contended that as per Rule No.27 of Bye-laws alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved party and without exhausting said alternative remedy available under bye-laws, the petition is not maintainable.

The 1st petitioner suppressed the factum of filing nomination and withdrawing the same and thereby, he has no locus standi to file main election petition.

It is further contended that as Rule 18 of Bye-laws, the election shall be held once in two years on or before 31st January for the office of District President, whose term is for two years, which expire by 31st January. Clause-4 of the same rule further says that if elections are not completed for Mandal and Town, District Council members due to any reasons, the District President Election should be held compulsorily as per rules and bye-laws. If elections are not conducted in time, the Mahasabha will take responsibility to conduct District President elections. Any member wantonly should not trouble or stop the process of District President elections, du