Thomas P. Joseph, J.

1. These Writ Petitions arise from O.P. No. 477 of 2005 of the court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Thiruvananthapuram. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as Petitioners and Respondents as in O.P. No. 477 of 2005.

2. Respondent No. 1 is the Kerala Hindi Prachar Sabha (for short, "the Sabha"). Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the Secretary, President and Treasurer, respectively of that Sabha. Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 are the said office bearers but, impleaded in their personal capacity. Original Petition was filed by 14 members of the Sabha u/s 25 of the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 (for short, "the Act") seeking removal of the existing Governing Body of the Sabha, appointing a fresh Governing Body, framing a scheme for management of the Sabha, settlement of accounts and for other reliefs. Petitioners alleged in the Original Petition that there was mismanagement of affairs of the Sabha and that there was no conduct of elections as prescribed by the bye-law. Petitioner Nos. 15 to 22, also members of the Sabha got impleaded in the Original Petition. Respondent No. 6 by then vacated his office in the Sabha. When the matter was pending before learned Additional District Judge there was a settlement of disputes between Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 1, 5 and 7. As per that agreement a bye-law making certain modifications to the existing bye-law was drafted and it was agreed that elections be held to the various bodies of the Sabha. Accordingly they filed I.A. Nos. 1832 and 1833 of 2009.I.A. No. 1832 of 2009 was to appoint a receiver to conduct fresh election as per the new bye-law agreed to between Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 and I.A. No. 1833 of 2009 was to record settlement. The modified bye-law was appended to I.A. No. 1833 of 2009. Learned Additional District Judge passed a common order dated 01-08-2009 on the said applications. The applications were allowed and Sri. K. Viswanathan (a retired District Judge) was appointed as receiver to conduct the election. The modified bye-law was accepted and order was passed in terms of the compromise. While so, additional Respondent Nos. 8 to 37 sought their impleadment in the original petition vide I.A. No. 2208 of 2009 and filed I.A. No. 2379 of 2009 for review of common order dated 1.8.2009 on various grounds including that there was no publication as required under O.I Rule 8(4) of the CPC (for short, "the Code"). Learned Additional District Judge reviewed the common order dated 1.8.2009 vide order dated 21.1.2010(on I.A. No. 2379 of 2009). Learned Additional District Judge observed that though no such publication (under O.I Rule 8(4) of the Code) is necessary when the matter is settled between the original parties to the proceeding settling a scheme and it is accepted, being a public matter it is within the power of court to direct publication about the settlement in appropriate cases and accordingly directed the parties to the Original Petition to effect necessary publication regarding the settlement vide I.A. Nos. 1832 and 1833 of 2009. That publication was made. In the meantime additional Respondent Nos. 8 to 37 filed W.P.C. No. 7009 of 2010 in this Court challenging the common order dated 1.8.2009 on I.A. Nos. 1832 and 1833 of 2009 and the order dated 21.1.2010 on I.A. No. 2379 of 2009. Contention raised was that original Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 had colluded among themselves and settled the matter in a manner detrimental to the interest of the Sabha and hence the compromise is not binding on the Sabha. This Court disposed of the Writ Petition by judgment dated 31.3.2010. The common order dated 1.8.2009 on I.A. Nos. 1832 and 1833 of 2009 and the order dated 21.1.2010 on I.A. No. 2379 of 2009 were set aside and learned Additional District Judge was directed to reconsider the matter afresh as per law after hearing both sides. In the meantime t