Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 228 (AP)

Chaitanya Mahila Mandali v. Punuri Arogyam

2003-02-11

P.S.NARAYANA

body2003
( 1 ) WITH the request and consent of both parties, the C. M. A. itself is taken up for final hearing. ( 2 ) WHEN the matter came up before this Court in C. M. P. No. 3178 of 2003 in c. M. P. 1186 of 2003 in C. M. A. No. 327 of 2003, Sri Muniraja representing mr. Satyanarayana Nimmagadda, Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff had made the following submissions. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel contended that the rejection of the plaint by the learned district Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District in c. F. R. No. 8110/25/x/2002 by an order dated 5-12-2002 cannot be sustained especially in the light of the fact that the plaint was returned by the Principal Junior civil Judge, Addanki on the ground of want of jurisdiction and observed that the proper forum is the District Court. Complying the same, the plaint was represented by the plaintiff before the District Court, Ongole and the learned District Judge, instead of entertaining the said plaint had rejected as riot maintainable. The learned counsel also had brought to my notice that, in fact, the principal Junior Civil Judge at Addanki had entertained the suit. The suit was numbered as O. S. No. 48 of 2002. But, however, at the time of hearing of temporary injunction application and making an order on the said application, the above said order was made by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, addanki. In all fairness, the counsel also submitted that in view of the peculiar facts the very return of the plaint in O. S. No. 48 of 2002 could have been questioned by the appellant. But neither the order of returning the plaint nor the order made in the temporary injunction application had been questioned. But instead the returned plaint was presented before the District Court, ongole and consequent thereupon the appellant had invited the present impugned order. The learned counsel also in the alternative submitted that even if the learned District Judge could not have entertained the suit the learned Judge could have treated the same as an application presented under Section 23 of the Societies registration Act, 2001. The learned counsel also in the alternative submitted that even if the learned District Judge could not have entertained the suit the learned Judge could have treated the same as an application presented under Section 23 of the Societies registration Act, 2001. The learned counsel also had taken me through Section 23 of the societies Registration Act, 2001 and also the impugned order made by the learned district Judge in this regard and the learned counsel had also further elaborated his submissions touching the merits and demerits of the matter and pointed out to several aspects which need not be discussed in detail in the light of the short controversy at present involved in the matter. ( 4 ) PER contra Sri Naram Nageswara Rao, the counsel representing the first respondent in the C. M. A and for the petitioner in c. M. P. No. 3178 of 2003 had submitted that even on a cursory reading of Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act, 2001 it is no doubt true that the said provision is not applicable to the facts of the case. But, however, there is no point in permitting the appellant to prosecute further the present suit in the light of the fact that the said suit is impliedly barred by Section 61 of the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to Section 121 of the said Act relating to bar of jurisdiction of Courts. The counsel further contended that in view of the peculiar facts giving liberty to the appellant to question the order passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge may not be of any consequence at all since the remedy available to the appellant is elsewhere. The learned Counsel also had touched several essential aspects, which in fact are concerned with the merits of the matter and need not be gone into at this threshhold. ( 5 ) THE facts in brief which paved the way for the present litigation can be narrated as hereunder. The learned Counsel also had touched several essential aspects, which in fact are concerned with the merits of the matter and need not be gone into at this threshhold. ( 5 ) THE facts in brief which paved the way for the present litigation can be narrated as hereunder. The appellant as plaintiff instituted O. S. No. 48 of 2002 on the file of the principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki praying for relief of declaration that the alleged renewal of registration of the plaintiff-organization, fraudulently obtained by the defendant, is void ab initio and not valid and binding on the plaintiff and for consequential injunction restraining the defendant, her men and agents from in any way interfering with the day-to-day functioning of the plaintiff organization in the plaint schedule premises. The learned principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki heard the temporary injunction application, i. A. No. 450 of 2002 in O. S. No. 48/2002 after marking documents Exs. P-1 to P-13 and R-1 to R-27 and made an elaborate order dismissing the temporary injunction application. The matter did not stop there. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, addanki also passed an order returning the plaint observing that the proper forum is the district Court in view of Section 23 of the a. P. Societies Registration Act, 2001. In view of the said return made by the Principal junior Civil Judge, Addanki the appellant herein instead of questioning the aforesaid order had presented the plaint before the district Court, Ongole and the learned district Judge observed that the averments made in the plaint do not disclose about any dispute with regard to the members of the said society and it is specifically averred in the plaint that the defendant is not a member of their society, therefore, the dispute alleged in the plaint is not a dispute between the members of the society but it is only with regard to renewal of registration obtained by the defendant and the same has to be declared void ab initio and thus, the relief prayed for by the plaintiff as per the averments made in the plaint will not fall under Section 23 of the A. P. Societies registration Act, 2001. Hence the plaint is rejected as not maintainable before the district Court. It is needless to say that aggrieved by the same, the present C. M. A. is filed before this Court. Hence the plaint is rejected as not maintainable before the district Court. It is needless to say that aggrieved by the same, the present C. M. A. is filed before this Court. ( 6 ) IT is pertinent to note that the appellant had presented the plaint in pursuance of the order made by the Principal Junior Civil judge. The learned District Judge had rejected the plaint only on the ground that the averments made in the plaint do not fall under Section 23 of the A. P. Societies registration Act, 2001. The learned District judge had specified no other ground. No doubt the question of bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit had been elaborately argued before the learned principal Junior Civil Judge while arguing the temporary injunction application. The question of applicability of Section 61 of the a. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 also had been raised. Section 23 of the A. P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 dealing with dispute regarding management reads as hereunder:"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". ( 7 ) IT is needless to say that in the light of admitted facts and the averments made in the plaint, Section 23 of the said Act will not be attracted. Hence the rejection of the plaint by the learned District Judge, cannot be in any way faulted. In view of the peculiarity of the facts Order VII Rule 11 (d) of Civil procedure Code in strict sense may not be applicable. But however, this presentation was done in pursuance of the order made by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki. No doubt, elaborate contentions had been advanced relating to the express and implied bar of the Civil Court under Sec. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But however, this presentation was done in pursuance of the order made by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki. No doubt, elaborate contentions had been advanced relating to the express and implied bar of the Civil Court under Sec. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 7 Rule 10 cpc deals with return of the plaint and the principal Junior Civil Judge after entertaining the suit thought it fit at the rime of deciding temporary injunction returning of the plaint on the ground of want of jurisdiction and had driven the party to district Court. Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC specifies that the plaint shall be rejected where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. I have carefully gone through the averments made in the plaint. It cannot be said that the suit as appears from the statement made in the plaint is barred by any law. It is essential to note that the defence that may be taken in the written statement may not be relevant for this purpose. But the allegations made in the plaint alone may have to be looked into. In this view of the matter and in the light of the facts and circumstances the return of the plaint by the learned Principal Junior Civil judge, is neither justified nor warranted but however the said order was not questioned. The appellant under the same impression that Section 23 of the A. P. Societies registration Act, 2001 is applicable had thought of presenting the plaint before the district Court which was rejected. But strictly speaking the rejection made by the learned District Judge, also may not be proper especially in the light of the return of the plaint made by the Principal Junior Civil judge. In the fitness of things, the learned district Judge could have directed the appellant to receive the plaint for presentation before the self-same Court in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances. In the fitness of things, the learned district Judge could have directed the appellant to receive the plaint for presentation before the self-same Court in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances. Be that as it may, in view of the facts and peculiar circumstances of the case and especially in the light of the fact that it was observed by the learned District judge that Section 23 of the A. P. Societies registration Act, 2001 cannot be made applicable in the present set of facts, the remedy available to the appellant is to question the order of return of plaint made by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge in O. S. No. 48 of 2002. The other questions which may be raised at a later point of time need not be considered at the threshold. Hence in view of the facts referred to supra, this Court is inclined to make the following order: The appellant is given liberty in the peculiar circumstances of the case to question the order passed by the learned principal Junior Civil Judge in O. S. No. 48 of 2002 returning the plaint to be presented before the District Court, Ongole and also the other order refusing to grant temporary injunction if the party is so advised. Except this direction, no further relief can be granted in the present CMA since in my considered view the very returning of the plaint is not in accordance with law and equally so the rejection made by the learned district Judge. The CMA is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.