Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K Fedarick Paradesi Babu vs Rev. Ch Isaiah Raju on 23 July, 2021
Author: D.Ramesh
Bench: D.Ramesh
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.303 of 2021
ORDER:-
Heard Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri G.Elisha, counsel on record for the revision petitioner and Sri Dammalapati Srivinvas, senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri G.Tuhin Kumar, counsel on record for the respondent.
2. Present civil revision petition is filed aggrieved in entertaining O.S.No.263 of 2020 filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein, and in adjourning the I.A.No.245 of 2021 and I.A.No.364 of 2020 granting ad- interim injunction in O.S.No.263 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Narsaraopet, Guntur District.
3. The respondent herein filed O.S.No.263 of 2020 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsaraopeta for grant of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein, not to interfere into the West Guntur Synod affairs and not to conduct 83rd annual convention and or any special conventions. The plaintiff also filed I.A.No.364 of 2020 in O.S.No.263 of 2020 for temporary injunction and the same was taken up for hearing on 16th November, 2020 and the Principal Junior Civil Judge, after hearing, granted ad-interim injunction and posted the matter on 28.12.2020. Having come to know about the ad-interim injunction, the petitioner herein/defendant immediately filed counter on 28.12.2020 stating that the Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church is a Registered Society, divided into six (6) Synods, for the purpose of smooth administration. The present subject matter pertains to the West Guntur Synod, the plaintiff is a Parish Pastor of Christ Centenary Lutheran Church, Takkellapadu Village, Dachepally Mandal. In the counter, they 2 have taken specific stand that as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, any dispute arising among the members of the society in respect of the affairs of the society, an application has to file before the Arbitrator/District Court concerned. The relevant portion of the said provision extracted as below:
"Section 23 Disputes, 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 provision 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."
4. Thus, in view of the above provision of law, the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Narasaraopet has no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein, and that the petitioner herein also filed I.A.No.245 of 2021 on 01.03.2021 with the following prayer:
"for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the petitioner/defendant prays that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to decide the issue of Maintainability and Jurisdiction as Primary issue before adjudicating the petition and subsequent petitions thereafter and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice."
5. For not taking up the above said I.A., vacate petition and the counter filed in I.A.No.364 of 2020, the present revision is filed on 08.03.2021.
6. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the court below has taken up the suit in O.S.No.263 of 2020, without having territorial jurisdiction and the same is contrary to Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Act, 2001. Despite filing the counter in I.A.No.364 of 2020 praying to vacate ad-interim injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff and without deciding the I.A.245 of 2021, the Court 3 below has adjourned the matter repeatedly on the requests made by the plaintiff/respondent herein.
7. Learned senior counsel has further contended that as per Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001, any dispute arising among 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, or may file application in the District Court concerned. But contra, the plaintiff/respondent herein has filed the suit in O.S.No.236 of 2020 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/petitioner herein, their men, associates, committees and councils not interfere in to West Guntur Synod affairs and not to conduct annual convention and subsequent yearly conventions up to 2020-2025. In view of the said provision, the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopeta instead of rejecting the plaint, entertained the same and numbered as 263 of 2020 and also granted ad-interim injunction, which is contrary to the said position.
8. To support his contention, without going to the merits of the case, learned senior counsel heavily relied on the following decisions:
In Andhra Evangelical Luthern Church and Ors1, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in C.R.P.No.4483, 4484 and 4485 of 2002 held at para 18 and 19 as -
"18. The Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 is a comprehensive enactment, which deals with the registration, management, administration, dissolution and winding up of the societies in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The provisions of the present Act govern the activities of such societies in all aspects. In view of the language of 1 2003 (2) ALD 191 4 Sub-section (2) of Section 32, the activity of those societies registered under the repealed enactments also is governed by the provisions of the new Act of 2001. Section 23 of the Act deals with the disputes regarding the management, which reads as follows:
"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, 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."
19. It can be seen from the above, the disputes arising among the "committee" which is defined to mean a body of the persons to whom the management of the society is entrusted by its bye-laws or the members of the society in respect of any matter relating to the affairs of the society is required to be resolved under the provisions of either the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or by filing an application to the District Court concerned. Therefore, in my view, the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain the disputes, which would fall within the ambit of Section 23 of the Act, is by a necessary implication barred. The dispute involved in the present case is in my view squarely falls within the ambit of Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 extracted above."
9. In another case, S.M.Kantha Raju Vs. Terapalli Dyvasahat Kumar2, it is held -
" 18. Therefore, having regard to the expressions used in the definition Clause 2(ii) of the said Act, 'Court having jurisdiction' and read with other provisions under Section 10, in relation to the place at which the registered office of the company concerned is situate and it was held that since the company was registered at Madras and therefore, the High Court of Madras was having jurisdiction.2
2007 (1) ALD 385 5
19. On a comparative look at the expression used in the provisions of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 as already pointed out, a dispute as under Section 23 of the said Act has to be raised in the District Court concerned. Even though the District Court concerned in its comprehensive term bodily does not find place in the definition clause. However, it is to be noted that the expression "the Court" finds its place amongst definition clauses in the Section 2(d) to mean that principal civil Court of original jurisdiction. These two provisions have to be read together and gather not only the meaning but also the object. Thus, the Court having been specifically defined in the very same legislation it can only be looked on for the purpose of finding out the competent District Court as referred to under Section 23 of the said Act. It refers to that Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. The District Court or Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction are one and the same and interchangeable expressions. The Court of concerned can only be that it exists or created or formed and registered. Necessarily it means that the District Court of that place and not otherwise. It is needless to mention that the said legislation is a special enactment and therefore, the general principles as applicable could not be brought in and therefore, no reliance as such can be brought in, in respect of the various situations contemplated under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The theory of part cause of action will not find place either to the facts of the case or very scope and object of the legislation under this Act. Hence, it has to be necessarily held that it is only concerned District Court, where the society is registered that which will have jurisdiction to entertain any dispute under Section 23 of the said Act and not otherwise."
10. In Terapalli Dyvasahat Kumar CVs. S.M.Kantha Raju (dead) through LRs3 in the appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that-
"12) It will be apparent that the scheme of the Societies Registration Act on the one hand, and that of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Act and the consolidating Act of 2001 on the other is completely different.
On the one hand, the 1860 Act refers the dispute that arises under Section 3 2018 11 SCC 769 6 13 only to the Principal Court of original civil jurisdiction of the District in which the chief building of the Society is situate. Under this Act therefore, jurisdiction is confined to one court and one court only: that is the principal court of original civil jurisdiction where the actual physical main building of the society is situate. On the other hand, Section 11 of the 1940 Act and Section 23 of the 2001 Act enable the person aggrieved to file an application in the "District Court concerned". It is this expression that has to be construed by this Court in the present case.
13) As the District Judge correctly states in the impugned judgment dated 17.01.2005, where the expression "District Court" is not defined by the special enactment in which it occurs, it must necessarily take with it all the trappings that go along with a District Court that is established under the general law. This would necessarily mean that the provisions applicable to District Courts generally would apply, and that therefore the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, when it comes to determining the jurisdiction of such District Court, would necessarily apply."
11. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that they have filed an application before Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaropet by way of I.A.No.245 of 2021, for taking this as a primary objection with regard to maintainability and jurisdiction of the suit and without deciding the same, the court below is proceeding with the suit and in view of the law decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court he prays to allow the revision.
12. Sri Dammalapati Srivinvas, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff contended that the revision itself is not maintainable for filing the same with more than one prayer. The present revision is filed by the petitioner herein to adjudicate the I.A.No.245 of 2021 and also for vacating the ad-interim injunction granted in the I.A.No.364 of 2021 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, which is contrary and not maintainable. Further contends that in fact the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.245 of 20201 on 01.03.2021 taking as a preliminary objection to decide the issue of maintainability and jurisdiction as primary issue, but without giving time to the court below to decide that issue, they have filed this revision on 08.03.2021. Hence, 7 the revision itself is not maintainable. Even according to the docket sheet, the court below has adjourned the matter not only at the instance of the respondent herein, but also at the instance of defendant/petitioner herein on many occasions.
13. Further it is submitted that in fact the petitioner herein filed counter on 04.01.2021 after that they themselves taken time i.e. on 02.02.2021, again on 10.02.2021 and at their request only the same is adjourned to 15.02.2021, after that the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.245 of 2021. In view of the same, he requested to remand the matter to the court below in deciding the preliminary issue by giving an opportunity to both the parties in I.A.No.245 of 2021.
14. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel, no doubt the petitioner herein have filed present revision on 08.03.2021, i.e., immediately after filing the I.A. No.245 of 2021 on 01.03.2021. In view of the above, the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet is directed to take up the I.A.No.245 of 2021 and decide the same as expeditiously as possible not later than two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
15. Accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.
_______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date:
Pnr 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 303 of 2021 Dated 23.07.2021 Pnr