G SREENIVASA CHAKRAVARTHY v. THE GRAMA PARISRAMALA SANGAMU

Assailing the correctness and legality of the orders passed by the Family Court cum VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu, in O.P.1 of 2019 dated 17.04.2023, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

The petitioner herein is the respondent No.1 and respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the petitioners and respondent No.4 is respondent No.2 in O.P filed for permanent injunction.

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein got filed O.P.No.1 of 2019 on the file of Family Court-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu, under Section 23 of Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, for permanent injunction restraining respondents therein, their men, agents from interfering in any manner a) for the reopening of the said Sangam b) for peaceful function of the Sangam by granting permanent injunction and also to grant any other relief which is required for smooth functioning of the said Sangam.

The petitioner herein filed his counter denying the allegations inter alia contending that the petition is not maintainable either on law or on 4 the facts. The Court below, basing on the pleadings, framed the following issues to be settled for trial:

How the petition is maintainable under Societies Registration Act by the petitioners for the relief as sought for?

2. If so, whether the petitioners are entitled for the relief of Permanent injunction against the respondents as sought for?

3. To what relief?

The Court below, after examining the parties and recording evidence, allowed the O.P. declaring Exhibit.B18 resolution, subsequent amendments to the Society memberships under Exs.B15 to B18 as illegal and unsustainable and accordingly, set aside the same thereby granting injunction restraining the respondents in the O.P., their men and agents from interfering with the peaceful functioning of the petitioner Society by giving liberty to the members of the society to conduct General Body meeting and to elect their Executive Committee as per by- laws for smooth functioning of the society continuing the Petitioner Nos.2 & 3 therein as their members. Assailing the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition came to be filed.

Heard Sri P.RajeshBabu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Srinivasulu P, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 3/petitioners in O.P.

Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the counter and the grounds of the revision submitted that the Court below exceeded its jurisdiction while deciding the question in issue and granted the relief which was not sought for even without framing any 5 issue in that regard. He further submitted that the Court below also failed to consider the maintainability of the petition filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein wherein they sought injunction which is not at all maintainable under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies and Registration Act,

2001. Despite there being no evidence to show that respondent No.2 herein was elected as the President of the Society and respondent No.3 herein as Secretary of the Society, the Court below went on presumptions and assumptions and allowed the O.P. He further submitted that if such order subsists, the petitioner would be put to great loss and hardship and it amounts to miscarriage of justice and accordingly, prayed to set aside the orders impugned.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents in elaboration to what has been stated in the O.P submitted that the Court below, to do complete justice, granted relief though not sought i.e., to set aside the resolutions under Ex.B15 to B18. He further contended that keeping in view the paramount welfare of the Society and its better functioning, is the need of hour to protect the interest of the Society of weaker sections of weavers, as such, the petitioner cannot find fault with the order. He further contended that as against the order passed by the Court below, the petitioner has to prefer an appeal but not a revision, as such, revision is liable to be dismissed. The Court below after going through the entire record and the evidence that was let in and by taking 6 into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, rightly allowed the O.P. No valid grounds raised or urged warranting interference of this Court and prayed to dismiss the Revision.

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgement of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in C.R.P.No.955 of 2020 to show that the revision is maintainable, accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders.

Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

Since the maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition is questioned, it is better to answer the same before going into the merits of the matter. Insofar as maintainability of the Revision is concerned, as held by the Coordinate bench of this Court in C.R.P.No.975 of 2020, that no appeal or miscellaneous Appeal can be filed against an order under Section 23 of the Act either under Section 96 read with Order XLI or Section 104 read with Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. In such circumstances, a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution would be maintainable.

The facts that led to filing of this Civil Revision Petition are as under: a. The petitioners case that Grama Parisramala Sangam, Dharmavaram, has been established in the year 1970 that an object to 7 i) establish and develop Khadi and Village Industries, ii) to improve economic moral and social standards of the villagers in the area of operation of the institution, iii) to elevate poverty and bring about better living conditions, mutual cooperation and unity among the villagers and general rural development by implementing such other activities which are identical for implementation of Khadi and village Industries program etc., and the said Sangam was registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860. b. It is their further case that upon a meeting held on 01.04.2017, to conduct election for executive body, the said Sangam elected the executive body wherein Petitioner Nos.2 & 3 in O.P. was elected as President & Joint Secretary and Respondent Nos.1 & 2 in O.P. as Secretary and Vice-President. Accordingly, they took charge of Petitioner No.1 Society. c. Later, when it was found that the respondents in the O.P. misused their status by selling the silk cloth belonging to the said Sangam and misappropriated funds of the Sangam, an enquiry conducted to the said effect and a crime was registered in that regard upon written complaint given by the president of the Society. However, as the respondents are interfering with the body and as the respondents are trying to remove the petitioners from the said Sangam, the said O.P came to be filed. 8

The said O.P. has been opposed by the respondents in O.P. by filing counter contending that the O.P. is not maintainable either on law or facts. After hearing the parties, after elaborate trial, the Court below examined PW1, PW2 and RW1 and marked Exhibits on behalf of petitioners Ex.A1 to 7, marked Exhibits on behalf of respondents Ex.B1 to B.18 and allowed the O.P. thereby declaring Ex.15 to 18 are illegal and unsustainable and they were set aside and further direction was given to the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful functioning of the Society.

The main ground that has been raised before this Court while questioning the orders impunged is that the Court below exceeded its jurisdiction while deciding the question in issue and granted the relief which was not sought for going beyond the relief sought for in pleadings. As could be seen from the cause of action for filing O.P, even the petitioner’s society did not make out any case for asking permanent injunction. Apart from that, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court below granted relief which was not sought for.

The Court below gave the following reason for granting such relief which reads as follows:

As per the contents of the petition even though the relief of declaration was not sought for but the established facts demands the same and unless the documents under Ex.B.15 to B.18 are not set aside by way of declaration the effective relief for smooth functioning of the P.1 society cannot be ordered in view of its 9 object and the paramount welfare of the society and its better functioning is the need of hour to protect the interest of weaker section of weavers to that effect. So, therefore, by exercising the powers under Section 151 CPC., this Court opined to pass appropriate orders to protect the weaker section of society and smooth functioning of P.1 society for better uplifting of weaver society members to meet the ultimate object of the society. Accordingly, these two issues are answered.

Granting such relief without pleadings or prayer deprives the opposing party the opportunity of resisting it leading to miscarriage of justice. It is a basic fundamental rule that the Court below cannot make out a case not pleaded by the parties. A relief not claimed and not flowing from the facts alleged in the claim should not be granted. The Hon’ble Apex Court, has categorically held that a Court generally cannot set aside or grant relief on issues that were not pleaded by the parties, as doing so violates principles of natural justice on fair trial. The Courts must confine decisions to questions raised in pleadings, as no amount of evidence can substitute a missing plea. In M/s Trojan & Co. Ltd v. Rm.N.N.Nagappa. Chettiar1 held that it is well settled that the decision of the case cannot be based on the ground outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded has to be found. Without the amendment of the plaint, the Court was not entitled to grant the relief not asked for and no prayer was ever made to amend the plaint so as to incorporate in it an alternative case. Similarly, In case of Bharat Amratlal 1 1953 Supreme Court 235 10 Kothari vs Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi & Ors2 has held that, though the court has very wide discretion in granting relief, the court, however, cannot, ignore and keep aside the norms and principles governing grant of relief, grant a relief not even prayed for by the petitioner.

As stated supra, the relief sought is for injunction, however, the Court has set aside the resolutions i.e., Ex.B15 to B18 without framing any issue to the said effect. The order passed by the Court below is erroneous and warrants interference. As such, the order impugned is hereby set aside.