THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Mr.Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.Mohammed Omer Farooq, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

Mr.Deepak Bhattacharya, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1-7.

JUDGMENT: (Per The Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (‘CMA’) arises out of an order dated 07.07.2025 passed in I.A.No.1921 of 2024 in SOP.No.10 of 2024 by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally (‘The Trial Court’).

2. The appellant had filed SOP.No.10 of 2024 to declare the purported resignation of the appellant from the respondent No.1- M/s. St. Vincent Educational Society (‘the Society’) as being fabricated and not binding on the appellant, and also to declare the Resolutions dated 23.05.2024 and 30.05.2024 passed by the respondent Nos.2-7 in the 1^st and 2^nd Special General Body Meetings of the Society dated 23.05.2024 and 30.05.2024 respectively as being illegal, null and void.

3. The appellant filed an IA in the SOP under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking a direction on the respondent Nos.1 – 11 to maintain the status quo ante as prevailing prior to the purported resignation letter of the appellant dated 30.04.2024 which was accepted in the Resolution dated 23.05.2024 passed in the 1^st Special General Body Meeting of the Society thereby permitting the appellant to continue functioning as the General Secretary and member of the respondent No.1 Society.

4. By the impugned order, the appellant’s IA was dismissed by the Trial Court, inter alia, on the ground that there were several disputed questions of fact which have to be decided in the main case viz. whether the resignation of the appellant is valid or fabricated and whether the appointment of the respondent No.3 has been done as per the Rules and Regulations of the Society. The Trial Court also opined that without deciding the disputed questions of fact, a status quo ante could not be granted. It was further noted that the appellant failed to make out a prima facie case in his favour or show balance of convenience in his favour or show that he would suffer irreparable loss for warranting the grant of an injunction in the matter.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there is grave urgency for passing interim orders in the present CMA, since the respondent Nos.2 to 7 continue to siphon off money from the respondent No.1 Society. Senior Counsel contends that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the strong prima facie case established by the appellant, the balance of convenience being in favour of the appellant, and the irreparable injury which would be caused to the appellant due to the actions of the respondents if the interim order as prayed for is not granted.

6. Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant disputes the resignation letter dated 30.04.2024 allegedly given by the appellant, as well as the Notices of the Meetings of the respondent No.1 Society which were relied upon by the respondents to show that the appellant’s representatives/family members were duly intimated of the meeting. Counsel also submits that the Trial Court did not consider the binding force of the Circular Memo bearing Circular No.12/D&IG/Peshi dated 01.10.2010 issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, A.P., Hyderabad (‘Inspector General’).

7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 7 submits that the alleged resignation letter dated 30.04.2024 was given by the appellant when he was present in India and that the appellant or his family members (the respondent Nos.8 to 10) did not object to or protest against the acceptance of the appellant’s resignation letter. Senior Counsel further disputes the binding force of the Circular dated 01.10.2010, relied upon by the appellant and urges th