ORDER :

1. The first defendant in O.S.No. 200 of 2015 pending on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Erode, is the revision petitioner herein. The revision petitioner had filed I.A.No. 833 of 2018 in the said suit. Simultaneously, the sixth defendant in the suit had also filed I.A.No. 832 of 2018. Both the Interlocutory Applications were dismissed by order dated 03.09.2019. Questioning that order, the first defendant/petitioner in I.A.No. 833 of 2018 has filed the present revision petition. The sixth defendant/petitioner in I.A.No. 832 of 2018, according to the learned counsels had not questioned the said order.

2. The suit in O.S.No. 200 of 2015 had been filed against the first defendant, a registered trust under the Societies Registration Act and other members of the first defendant and also against the District Collector of Erode and the District Registrar of Erode seeking a Judgment and Decree in the nature of a declaration that the elections to the General Council and the Executive Committee for the first defendant held on 21.02.2015 and on 01.03.2015 and conducted by the second defendant based on notifications dated 11.02.2015 were invalid and against the bylaws of the first defendant and to declare the elections for the Executive Committee and office bearers also as invalid and for a permanent injunction restraining the third and sixth defendants from functioning as office bearers of the first defendant and also for an injunction against the eighth defendant from taking on file the list of elected body of the first defendant and for a mandatory injunction to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to conduct the election for the first defendant Trust and for such further reliefs as may be granted by the Court.

3. The suit had been meandering around without any effective progress. A written statement had been filed by the first defendant and subsequently, an additional written statement had also been filed. These had been filed in the year 2015 itself.

4. Thereafter, the first defendant filed I.A.No. 833 of 2018 to dismiss the suit as infructuous. It is seen that subsequent to the institution of the suit and pending the suit, the term of the office bearers whose election have been questioned in the suit had run its course and in the year 2018, fresh elections had also been held. That election has not been challenged or questioned by the plaintiff. Further, the term of the office bearers elected in the year 2018 had also been completed in the year 2021 and steps to conduct fresh elections have also been undertaken by the first defendant.

5. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No. 833 of 2018, it had been stated that the tenure of the members, who have been elected for the period 2015-2018 was for three years and had expired in the year 2018 and subsequently in the year 2018, further elections had been held for office bearers to function from 2018 to 2021. It had also been stated that the said set of office bearers had also been recognised by the District Registrar, who had taken their names on record and they had also taken charge of their respective posts. It had therefore been stated that the suit had become infructuous and no effective Judgement can be passed with respect to the reliefs sought in the suit.

6. A counter had been filed on behalf of the plaintiff wherein the contention that the suit had become infructuous was disputed. It had been claimed that the cause of action still survive and is not wiped away merely because elections had been conducted for the subsequent period. It had been stated that even on an earlier occasion, when a suit was filed challenging the elections conducted in the year 2000, it was disposed of only in the year 2009 and first appeal was disposed of in the year 2013 and the second appeal was disposed of in the year 2014 and the election conduced in the year 2000 was held invalid. It had therefore been stated that the application should be dismissed and the plaintiff should be per