Order:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the docket order dated

18.09.2019 passed in IA No.463 of 2019 in SROP No.5 of 2019 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam district, whereby and whereunder the revision petitioners herein were restrained by means of ad-interim injunction from interfering with the functions and duties of th the 7 respondent herein and its executive body till 08.11.2019.

The petitioners herein are respondents 2 to 4, respondents 1 to 6 herein are the petitioners and respondents 7 to 13 herein are the respondents 1 and 5 to 10 in SROP No.5 of 2019. For the sake of convenience the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the SROP.

The petitioners have filed SROP No.5 of 2019, under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, seeking to declare st that the 1 respondent society is under control and administration of the executive body consisting of petitioners 1 to 5, respondents 5 to 8 and ten (10) other members; to declare that the respondents 2 to 4 are not newly elected persons and they are not entitled to continue in the executive st body of the 1 respondent society and for permanent injunction restraining the alleged new executive body consisting of respondents 2 to st

4 from in any way interfering with the 1 respondent society’s administration and management by the existing executive body including petitioners 1 to 5 and respondents 5 to 8 and its peaceful possession and enjoyment of Kapu Kalyana Mandapam along with the building belonging to the Society. Along with the said SROP, the petitioners also filed IA No.463 of 2019 seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents st

2 to 4 from in any way interfering with the functions and duties of the 1 respondent’s society and its executive body consisting of the petitioners 1 to 5 and respondents 5 to 8. The Court below, by impugned docket order, granted ad-interim injunction till 08.11.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents 2 to 4 in the SROP have filed the present CRP.

Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 6.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that the impugned docket order passed by the Court below is not sustainable under law, since no reasons have been assigned therein. He further submits that the Court below has no jurisdiction to interfere into the society election issues after elected body has started functioning. He further submits that the Court below erred in posting the injunction petition beyond 30 days from the date of granting ex parte injunction which amounts to non-compliance of the requirement contemplated under Rule 3-A of Order 39 CPC, hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He further submits that against the impugned order revision is maintainable. In support of his contentions he relied on the decisions

1 reported in Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi , 2 NCL Industries Limited v. M.S. Raju , Valluru Hemalatha v.

3 Settipalli Panduranga Rao , G.V. Ranga Rao v. A.P. State

4 Electricity Board Engineers Association and Terapalli Dyvasahata Kumar v. S.M. Kantha Raju (Dead) through Legal

5 Representatives .

1 (1993) 3 SCC 161

2 1999 (5) ALT 434 (DB) 3 2001 (2) ALT 414 (DB) 4 2001 (5) ALT 553 (FB)

5 (2018) 11 SCC 769

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 6 submits that the petitioners have questioned the notice dated 18.09.2019 issued to them by the Court pursuant to the impugned docket order dated 16.09.2019 and they have not questioned the impugned docket order dated 16.09.2019 and on this ground alone the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. He further submits that against the impugned docket order only appeal lies under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC and revision is not maintainable. He further submits that once the trial Court applies its mind, sufficiency or insufficiency of reasons cannot be gone into and the power of Court is traceable to