The impugned order was found to be void as it did not comply with the principles of natural justice and the mandatory provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The additional 4th defendant in O. S. No. 46 of 1995, on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Parappanangadi, has preferred this revision petition against the judgment dated 13.9.1995 in C. M. A. No. 22 of 1995 on the file of the Sub Court, Tirur. By the impugned order, the learned Sub Judge while dismissing the appeal against the order in I. A. No. 660 of 1995 allowed the petition of the appellants/ defendants therein for appointment of a Receiver to conduct the election of the office bearers of the managing committee of the mosque (3rd respondent herein) in the presence of the representative of the Wake Board. The respondents/ plaintiffs agreed to the suggestion of the appellants/ defendants therein and their counsel submitted that he has no objection in disposing of the appeal in terms of the affidavit filed by the 2nd appellant.

2. Respondents 4 & 5 herein instituted O. S. No. 46 of 1995 in the Munsiff s Court, Parappanangadi for issue of a mandatory injunction directing respondents 1 & 2 herein (who were defendants 1 and 2 in the suit) to prepare a list of members of the General Body of the Society, which is respondent No. 3 herein (defendant No. 3 in the suit) and to hold the election to the managing committee as provided in the bye-laws of the Society. They were permitted to file it as a representative suit under Order I R.8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the C. P. C.). The plaintiffs/respondents are the members of the Mahal covered by the Society. Defendants 1 & 2, who are respondents 1 and 2 herein, are managing the affairs of the Society claiming themselves as the President and Secretary of the Committee. The Mosque, which was registered under the Societies Registration Act, gets considerable income from the offerings of its devotees. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that respondents Nos.1 and 2 have mismanaged the society and misappropriated its income. Hence the plaintiffs/respondents 4 and 5 filed the suit. They also filed an application, I. A. No. 660 of 1995 in the Munsiff 's Court for appointment of a Receiver to supervise the affairs of the mosque and to maintain proper accounts of the income and expenditure of the fund of the committee during the pendency of the suit. Respondents 1 and 2 herein opposed the petition on various grounds.

3. The learned Munsiff, by his order dated 29.5.1995, allowed the petition and appointed a receiver to have proper account of income and expenditure of the fund of the Society. Being aggrieved by this order, respondents-defendants in the I. A. preferred an appeal as C. M. A. No. 22 of 1995 in the Sub Court, Tirur.

4. When the appeal came up for hearing, the 2nd appellant (who is the 2nd defendant in the suit) filed an affidavit stating that the appeal may be disposed of by directing the receiver to conduct the election of the office bearers in the presence of a representative of the Wakf Board within two months from that date. The respondents/ plaintiffs submitted that they have no objection in disposing of the appeal in terms of the affidavit. Accordingly, on the basis of the agreement between the parties, namely, respondents 1 and 2 on the one side and respondents 4 and 5 on the other, the learned Sub Judge passed the impugned order by which the receiver was empowered to conduct the election of the office bearers of the managing committee. He was also directed to intimate the results of the election to the trial court. After this order was passed, the present petitioner by the leave of the Court got himself impleaded as the additional 4th defendant in the suit. He did not have an opportunity of being heard in I. A. No. 660 of 1995 in the Munsiff s Court and also in C. M. A. No. 22 of 1995. He filed a petition to grant permission to file the Civil Revision Petition on 3.1.1996. He filed the revision petition on that date.

5. It is contended by the petitioner herein that this being a suit filed under O.I Rule S C.P.C. the impugned order is void in as much as