A trial court can take note of subsequent developments and dismiss a suit as infructuous if the cause of action has ceased to exist.

ORDER :

V. Lakshminarayanan, J.

Heard Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram for the petitioner and Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar representing Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan for the respondents.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as the plaintiff and defendants. This revision is at the instance of the plaintiff.

3. The undisputed facts are that the plaintiff intended to participate in an election to be conducted for the Management Committee members of the first defendant Society. The first defendant Society is a pre-eminent charitable institution consisting exclusively of members of Naattukkottai Nagarathar Community. They have been running charities in several places across the country and most particularly, performing yeoman service to Shree Viswanatha Swamy Thirukovil at Kasi/Varanasi.

4. The plaintiff had functioned as the Secretary of the first defendant Society for the period from 2019 to 2023. Thereafter, fresh elections had been held and new office bearers took over. Their tenure has also come to an end. The ensuing election for the period 2026 to 2029 is scheduled to be held on 16.05.2026.

5. As per the bye-laws, customs and regulations governing the first defendant Society, only those persons, who have are entitled to contest for election. Those having and belonging to a particular Village are nominated by that Village to the General Body of the first defendant Society. The plaintiff belongs to the Village of Karaikudi. He sought nomination from his Village to the General Body. He was so nominated. On 09.03.2026, the plaintiff submitted an application to contest to the post of Vice President. Originally, the election was scheduled to be held on 05.04.2026. On account of the notification of the general election to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, the election is now postponed to 16.05.2026.

6. On 10.03.2026, the Election Officer, who is also the Outgoing President of the first defendant Society intimated the plaintiff that his nomination to the General Body stands rejected. The Election Officer further called upon the Karaikudi Constituency to nominate another eligible person for the said post.

7. Alleging that the manner in which the order, dated 10.03.2026, had been issued is contrary to the Bye-law No.3(c) read with Bye-law No.4 of the first defendant Society, the plaintiff presented O.S.No.35 of 2026 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Karaikudi. Along with the said suit, he moved an application in I.A.No.2 of 2026, seeking an interim order.

8. The learned Trial Judge was convinced that a prima facie case exists in favour of the plaintiff; that balance of convenience was also in his favour and granted an interim order. He directed the plaintiff to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure and listed the application for completion of service to 06.04.2026. On 13.03.2026, the plaintiff moved an application for advancing the hearing in order to take further steps for alleged violation of the interim order. The learned Trial Judge allowed the advance hearing application and listed the matter for enquiry on 23.03.2026. On 23.03.2026, the defendants entered appearance. They filed their counter and argued for vacating of the interim order.

9. By an order dated 23.03.2026, the learned Judge vacated the interim order granted on 11.03.2026 and thereafter, received the counter along with two documents filed by the defendants. The matter was adjourned to 06.04.2026 for enquiry on the side of the petitioner. On 06.04.2026, the matter was adjourned to 10.04.2026. On 10.04.