Telangana High Court
S A Surabhi Prasad, Hyd vs R. Kodanda Rao, Hyd Six Others on 22 December, 2021
Author: Chillakur Sumalatha
Bench: Chillakur Sumalatha
HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
C.R.P.No.6235 of 2017
ORDER:
Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of S.O.P.No.257 of 2015 which was pending on the file of the Court of XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, through order dated 20.7.2017, the petitioner therein had filed the present Civil Revision Petition.
2. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondents failed to submit their contentions.
3. Expressing the grievance of the petitioner in his words, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court dismissed the S.O.P. on the ground that the jurisdiction vests with the Registrar of Societies and thereby, ignored the power conferred on it under Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 and as such, the impugned order is erroneous and hence, it has to be set aside.
4. As per the material available on record, the petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001, seeking the Court to declare the so-called elections dated 27.01.2015 as illegal, mala fide, arbitrary, null and void; to direct holding of elections under the supervision of an Advocate- Commissioner; to appoint a Receiver to manage the affairs of the society; and for costs.
5. The version of the petitioner is that he belongs to Surabhi family and Surabhi Theatre troupe was formed for performing various Dr.CSL, J 2 CRP.No.6235 of 2017 mythological dramas and that, recognising the plight of the said troupe, the Government of Andhra Pradesh gave 200 individual pattas to the members of the said troupe in Surabhi Colony, Ranga Reddy District and that, Surabhi Colony Welfare Association (hereinafter be referred as "the society") was registered in the year 2007 and the petitioner is one of the Executive Members of the said Association and subsequently, there arose disputes with regard to the management of the said society and as such, the aforesaid S.O.P. was filed.
6. Record further discloses that during the course of enquiry, the petitioner got himself examined as P.W-1 and produced the relevant documents which were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-7. The learned Judge of the trial Court in the impugned order discussed at length with regard to the merits of the petition and finally, dismissed the petition mainly on two grounds; firstly, the disputes between the members of the society with regard to running of the society have to be dealt with by the Registrar of Societies (para 8 of the order); and secondly that the petitioner has not let in any evidence justifying his contention with regard to the mismanagement of the affairs of the society for appointing any Receiver. The learned Judge also observed that the petitioner failed to establish that any elections were conducted on the alleged date.
7. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the paper publication which is marked as Ex.A-6 clearly shows that elections were conducted. However, a copy of the paper publication which is available on record does not disclose Dr.CSL, J 3 CRP.No.6235 of 2017 that elections were conducted on the alleged date, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. Though an observation was made by the trial Court that the petitioner ought to have approached the Registrar of Societies regarding the dispute, yet when the impugned order is gone through, this Court finds that the learned Judge of the trial Court after making the said observation, had also discussed about the merits of the case and thereafter, dismissed the petition. The learned Judge did not dismiss the said S.O.P. on the sole ground that he lacks jurisdiction. The merits of the case were discussed at length and thereafter, the learned Judge of the trial Court came to a conclusion that the said S.O.P. is not maintainable.
9. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001, empowers the Court concerned to deal with the matters relating to affairs of the society and therefore, on that count, the petitioner is justifiable in expressing his grievance. However, as earlier discussed, the S.O.P. was dismissed on merits.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that though the respondents did not contest the matter, the petition was dismissed and the dismissal of the petition, thus, is improper. This Court is not inclined to appreciate the said proposition. When the case lacks merits, it deserves dismissal though the opposite party fails to make its appearance and dispute the claim made. When the order under challenge is gone through, this Court finds that the learned Dr.CSL, J 4 CRP.No.6235 of 2017 Judge of the trial Court has discussed each and every aspect of the case and came to a justifiable conclusion. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there are no merits in this Civil Revision Petition warranting interference by this Court.
11. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed without costs.
___________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA 22.12.2021 dr