Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Rev.Mylabattula Ananda Samson ... vs Rev.Sarakula Syam Sundar, on 13 December, 2022
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2028 of 2022
Between:
Rev.Mylabattula Ananda Samson Martins, S/o
Ananda John Bab Martis, aged about 51
years, Occ: AELC Parish Pastor, (shown in
SOP No.6/2022 as R/o Sunkara Paddaiah
Street, Rest House Road, Bhimavaram), R/o
Narsapur, West Godavari District.
... Petitioner.
Versus
Rev.Sarakula Syam Sundar, S/o Suryarao,
aged about 48 years, Occ: Pastor, (shown in
SOP No.6/2022 as R/o Christ Luthern
Church, Narsapur), R/o Flat No.202, Karnam
Apartment, Rustumbada, Narsapur, West
Godavari District and another.
... Respondents.
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri DVVSSNH Bhujanga Rao
Counsel for respondents : Sri J.Saraschandra Babu
ORDER
Respondent in SOP filed the above revision against the order dated 13.09.2022 in I.A.No.1135 of 2022 in S.O.P.No.6 of 2022 on the file of Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru.
2. 1st Respondent herein filed the S.O.P.No.6 of 2022 seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondent 2 (revision petitioner herein) and his men from ever interfering with the administration affairs and to discharge the duties of petitioners 1 and 2 as parish pastor and chairman of petition schedule church i.e. Christ Luthern Church, Narsapur.
3. Pending the SOP, respondent filed I.A.No.1135 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the SOP.
4. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended interalia that prior to filing of S.O.P.No.6 of 2022, he filed O.S.No.70 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur against the petitioner and six others for permanent injunction; that as per the order dated 28.06.2021 issued by Dr.Elia Ch, Moderator/President of Andhra Evangelical Luthern church, Guntur, he assumed charge as parish pastor of Christ Luthern church, Narsapur for a period of five years from 28.06.2021 to 31.06.2026; that when the petitioner filed S.O.P.No.6 of 2022 and tried to dispossess, he filed suit O.S.No.70 of 2022; that by suppressing the real facts, petitioner filed SOP under Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act (for short "the Act") on the file of Principal District Judge, Eluru; that petition 3 schedule property is located in Narsapur and the Principal Office is located at Broadipet, Becker Compound, Guntur and therefore, there is no cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of Eluru; that in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Terapalli Dyvasahata Kumar Vs. S.M.Kantha Raju (Dead) Thr. Lrs and Anr.1, S.O.P.No.6 of 2022 on the file of Principal District Judge, Eluru is not maintainable as also the petition does not disclose cause of action and thus, prayed to reject the SOP.
5. Counter was filed opposing the application. In the counter it was contended interalia that if the Court has no jurisdiction, SOP should be returned under Order VII Rule 10A of CPC and the petition under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC would not lie; that as per Sections 20 and 21 of CPC, SOP was filed before the Principal District Judge, Eluru and eventually prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. Trial Court by order dated 13.09.2022 allowed the petition, in part, and dismissed the claim under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. However, by applying Section 24 of CPC, 1 AIR 2017 SC 4405 4 S.O.P.No.6 of 2022 is withdrawn from the file of Principal District Court, Eluru and transferred to X Additional District Court, Narsapur.
7. Aggrieved by the said order, the above revision is filed.
8. Heard Sri DVVSSNH Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri J.Saraschandra Babu, learned counsel for respondents.
9. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that S.O.P.No.6 of 2022 is filed on the file of Principal District Judge, Eluru and the Court has no territorial jurisdiction. He would also submit that in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Terapalli Dyvasahata Kumar's case, the Court at Narsapur got jurisdiction, but not Principal District Judge, Eluru, since the church is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Narsapur. He would also submit that since S.O.P.No.6 of 2022 was filed on the file of Principal District Judge, Eluru, the Court below ought to have rejected the SOP, instead of transferring it under Section 24 of CPC to X Additional District Court, Narsapur.
5
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents support the order of the Court below.
11. Now, the point for consideration is:
Whether the Court below exceeded its jurisdiction in transferring the SOP to X Additional District Court, Narsapur from Principal District Judge Court, Eluru?
12. S.O.P.No.6 of 2022 was filed under Section 23 of the Act by respondents in the revision seeking perpetual injunction and other reliefs. Revision petitioner, being respondent in SOP filed I.A.No.1135 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint, mainly placing reliance upon Hon'ble Apex Court in Terapalli Dyvasahata Kumar's case. Before filing of S.O.P.No.6 of 2022, revision petitioner filed suit O.S.No.70 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur. In fact, the revision petitioner also filed S.O.P.No.1 of 2022 on the file of Principal District Judge, Eluru and later withdrew the same.
13. A perusal of the record would indicate W.P.No.12680 of 2022 was filed on the file of the High Court and the same was disposed of giving liberty to the parties to approach the civil 6 Court, where the suit and SOP are pending. After the order of the High Court, S.O.P.No.1 of 2022 was withdrawn.
14. It is apt to extract Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, which reads thus:
11. Rejection of plaint.-- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:--
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9.
Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.
7
15. A perusal of Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC would indicate that the plaint can be rejected, when it does not disclose a cause of action; undervalued; not properly valued; barred by any law; where it is not filed in duplicate and fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9. Order VII Rule 10 of CPC deals with return of plaint, that at any stage of suit, subject to Rule 10A. Plaint will be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted.
16. In the case on hand, SOP was filed invoking Section 23 of the Act. Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 reads thus:
23. Dispute regarding management - In the event of any dispute arising among the Committee or the members of the society, in respect of any matter relating to the affairs of the society, any member of the society may proceed with the dispute under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (Central Act 26 of 1996), or may file an application in the District Court concerned and the said court shall after necessary inquiry pass such order as it may deem fit.
17. Considering the above provision, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Terapalli Dyvasahata Kumar's case upheld the order regarding maintainability of case filed on the file of District Court, Visakhapatnam, while reversing the order of 8 the High Court. The finding of the Hon'ble Apex Court at Paragraph-18 of the Judgment reads thus:
"18. In this view of the law, we set aside the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 19.09.2006. We must indicate that the impugned judgment is wrong on two counts. First, in applying the definition of "the Court" to "District Court" mentioned in Section 23, and then concluding that it would refer only to the principal Court of original jurisdiction of one particular place. It is also wrong in stating that as the 2001 Andhra Pradesh Act is a special enactment, general principles applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure would not apply, for the reasons given by us above."
18. The schedule property lies within the jurisdiction of the District Court, West Godavari Eluru, particularly within the jurisdiction of Narsapur. Suit O.S.No.70 of 2022 was filed by revision petitioner and the same is pending before the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur. In W.P.No.12680 of 2022, this Court, while disposing of the writ petition, has given liberty to the parties to approach the civil Court, where suit and SOP are pending.
19. Considering facts of the case, learned District Judge invoked Section 24 of CPC and transferred S.O.P.No.6 of 2022 to the Court of X Additional District Judge, Narsapur. When SOP discloses cause of action, it cannot be rejected on 9 the ground that it does not disclose cause of action. Regarding territorial jurisdiction also, as observed by the learned District Judge, Principal District Court is having jurisdiction in the entire District and the property lies within the jurisdiction of the District Court. However, considering the judgment of the Apex Court and order in W.P.No.12680 of 2022, learned District by exercising power under Section 24 of CPC, transferred S.O.P.No.6 of 2022 to the Court of X Additional District Judge, Narsapur.
20. Since the Court below exercised jurisdiction vested with it and transferred SOP, this Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the Court below warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
21. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at admission stage. No costs.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
_________________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J 13th December, 2022 PVD