The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 151 CPC and the relevance of subsequent events in determining the continuation of the suit.

The defendant-trust has filed the present revision as against the dismissal of the application filed by it under Section 151 CPC to dismiss the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs as having become infructuous due to the happening of a subsequent event.

2. The respondents herein instituted O.S.No:482 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Erode, as against the petitioners trust for declaration to declare the General Body Meeting and the election to the General Council, Executive Committee and Office Bearers of the Trust held on 25. 2000 as null and void and for consequential relief. It is the case of the plaintiffs that it is an election meeting held on 25. 2000 and further in the absence of the resolution passed in the Executive committee and without notice to the respondents, it is bad in law.

3. Subsequently, the respondents/plaintiffs also filed another suit in O.S.No:1287 of 2004 before the same court praying for declaration that the suspension order communicated on 212. 2001 passed by the petitioner-trust is not valid and for consequential injunction restraining the petitioner from holding the General Body Meeting on 12. 2002 or after as intimated to other members, without notice to the respondents herein. In the said suit the plaintiffs have also sought for a prayer to conduct fresh election as per the bye law of the trust. Pending the said suit, they filed I.A.No:119 of 2002 restraining the petitioner-trust from holding the General Body Meeting on or after 12. 2002 without notice to the respondents. The said Interlocutory Application was allowed and the appeal before the first appellate court and the revision before this court in CRP.No.1355 of 2004 filed by the petitioner-trust have been dismissed. Ultimately, the suit has been decreed on 110. 2006.

.4. While so, when the first suit O.S.No:482 of 2004 was pending, the defendants filed I.A.No:327 of 2005 during September, 2005 to dismiss the suit as infructuous in view of the Election held on 211. 2004. It is also stated in the affidavit that the General Body Meeting was conducted after due notice to the respondents. The plaintiffs resisted the said application contending that the very conduct of the General Body Meeting on 211. 2004 and the consequential election is bad and contrary to the orders passed in I.A.No.119 of 2002 in O.S.No.1287 of 2004. It was also contended by the plaintiffs that no notice was issued to them as per the resolution Ex.P.1 which says that it is resolved not to send any notice to the plaintiffs.

5. The learned II Additional District Munsif, Erode, on a consideration of the averments, Exhibits and also the respective submissions of the parties dismissed the said application. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner-trust has come before this court by filing the present revision petition.

6. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner-trust contended that the petitioner-trust is a registered one and it is governed by its own bye law and rules for its proper management. As per the Rules, the period of office is 3 years. The duration of office also expired in 2003 and for the subsequent period also elections were conducted and new office bearers are now holding the office. The Executive Committee meeting was conducted on 210. 2004 and elections were held on 211. 2004 as per the rules in the bye law. The plaintiffs had not obtained any interim order of stay or injunction as against the petitioner-rust from holding the election. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner the cause of action for the present suit is entirely different and it would not in any manner vitiate the election meeting held on 210. 2004. The validity of the elections held on 25. 2000, challenged in the present suit is of no consequence for adjudicating the correctness of the election conducted on 211. 2004.

.7. It is also contended that non issuance of the notice, even assuming it to be t