Sri. E B v. Ramana Gupta, Sio. E. Rajaiah, Aged about

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Girija Shanker Sharma Counsel for the Respondents: Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER ) THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA cwIL REVISION PETITION No.2248 of 2o24 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner to set aside the order dated O5.O1.2O24 passed in SOP SR No.4493 of 2023 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge-Cum-ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Cum-Principal Family Court, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are that tn 2O2O-22, tl;e petitioner, who is residing in his own villa bearing No. 150 at Indu Fortune Fields Villa, KPHB, Phase-13, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, served as the president of the Society of respondent No.1-M/s.Indu Fortune Fields Villa Owners Association (for short 'SocietyJ, which is registered under the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001. Thereafter, in the year 2022, a new executive committee 2022-2024 was elected and immediately after taking charge from the old executive committee of respondent No.1-Society, the newly elected Committee sought 2 srs,J ( n1L REWSION PETtION No 2248 OF 2024 for written explanation from the past executivr: committee 2020- 2022 in respect of the Special Audit Reports finding. It is stated that since the petitioner was in USA at that tirre, the other past executive committee members of responde:nt No. l -Societ5r submitted uritten explanation as sought by rhe new executive committee 2022-2024. Later, in the Executive General Body Meeting of respondent No.1-Society held on 3I.O7.2022, a resolution was passed debarring the petition<:r from assuming any position of responsibility, elected or nominated in IFFVOA forever. Hence, the pet.itioner filed the SOP SR No.4493 of 2023 to declare resolution dated 31.07.2022 passed in the Execution General Bodl Meeting of respondent No. l-So<:iety in debarring the petitioner from assuming any position in respondent No.1- Society, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonabl e and u<tid ab-initio.

4. By the impugned order, the petition filed under Section 23 of the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2rl01, (previously, Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 200 t) (for short the Act') to declare resolution dated 31.07.2022 as illegal and uoid ab-initio, u,as rejected by the tria_l Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this revision petition. I 3 .srsJ cL47 REvlslON PETrr,.JN No.224 8 OF 2424 Heard Sri Girija Shankar Sharma, Iearned counsel for

5. the petitioner and Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned counsel for respondents. Perused the material available on record' Learned counsel for the petitioner frstlg submitted that 6. during 2020-2022, since the petitioner, the then president of respondent No.1-Society, has issued a notice to respondent No'3 and his friend namely, Sai Chintala for illegally operating a drone camera in the premises of respondent No' l-Society without any prior permission, respondent Nos'2 to 4 and their associates, having developed personal grudge over the petitioner' passed the impugned resolution dated 3l'O7 '2022 with preplanned sketch only to take vengeance against the petitioner' He secondlg submitted that though the petitioner hled a private complaint uide CCSR No.195 of 2023 and a suit uide O'S'No'62 of 2024 and SOP SR No.853 of 2024 against the respondents' the same are rejected/ dismissed without appreciating the facts in proper perspective. He thirdlg submitted that the trial Court hasnotconsideredthescopeofSection23oftheActinproper perspective. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi in 4 sI(SJ Crm REVISIaN PETITION o 224a OF 2024 C.Vasudeoa Rrzo a. State of Andhra Pradesh and otherst and judgments of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at H1'derabad in C.Babu Rao v. District Registrar, Registration of Societies, Hgd.erabad and othersz and, Daganand Agarutal and others u. Ra,ni.esh Agarutal and o,n.other4 and prayed the Court to allow th.e Civil Revision Petition.

7. On the other hald, iearned counsel for the respondents sought to sustain the impugned order passed b1. the trial Court stating that the trial Court has rightly rejected SOp SR No.4493 of 2024 after going thoroughly into the facts oi the case. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in DR.F Emplogees Weffare Societg (DRFEWS), Hgd,erabad, and others a. Swanninathant and judgment of ttre erstwhile High Court of Judrcature, Andhra pradesh at Hyderabad in Khan Abdul caffar Khan Memorial Educational Societg, Nellore District u, District Registrar of Societies, Nellore and. '.2oze g1 ALD 2 10 (Ap) '2010 (1) ALD 542 tc.R.P.No.2793 of 20t l "2020 16l ALD 29s (TSt 5 srs,J ctutL REnSION PATffION No.2248 OF 2024 otherss and prayed the Court to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. 8 In view of the rival submissions made by both the parties, this Court has perused the material available on record' It is apparent that the petitioner, who is also a member of respondent No.1-Society, served as President of respondent No.l-Society in 2O2O-2O22' At this juncture, it is apposite to reproduce the relevant paragraphs from the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi in C'Vasudeaa Rao (Supra I/ which reads as under: "24. As the motter Pert airls to an election dispute relating to the election of office bearers of the Executiue Committee of tte 2"d resoondent Association, the dispute squarelu falls uithin the ambit of Section23of the A.P. Societies Reqistratton Act, 2001 Section 23 reads thus: ocietu, f Dispute regarding mandgement - In the euent of "23. d,ipute arisino amona the Committee or tlrc tn respect of onu matter rs of the s relatinq to the affairs o the societu, onu member of the societlt maA proceed uith the disPute under tlLe prouisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Central Act 26 of 1996), or mau file an aPPlication in the Di.strict Court concerned and the said. Court shnll after necessaru inouiru pass such order as it maa deemfit."

35. The Court held. that the petitioner Association- is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, tt-thich stood repealed bg Section 32 of tlrc A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2OO1 and iection 32(2) ol ine ZoOl Act lags doun that nofiuithstanding the repeot o7 iAl1o Act, anuthinq done or action taken under thnt Act 'zooz 1o1 ALD 709 6 STSJ cNlL REvtslO!,[ PETtIoN No.224A OF 2024 shall be deemed to Ltaue been done or taken in exercise of tLLe pouers con ferred b under the 2001 AcL as if the said Act uas in fotge on the dote on which the thino tuas ,Cone or action tuas taken- The refore, the Petitioner-Association should be deemed to lTaue been registered under the _4.p, Societies Registranon Act, 2001. It is held tlnt if the election held for that Sociely is not in accordance tuith its bge-lanus, person aggieued by those inegularities has to fiLe o petition, questioning the elections ht:ld to its Gouern[ng Bodg So, ang rn,ember of the Societg, iulrc is aggieued in respect of the ,zlection of the Associatictn, tllat uas conducted, has a right to moue tlrc District Court concented under Sectton 23 of the 2OO1 Act, tuhich b an effectiue rentedg pr<>uided by the Statute. Further trcld that uhen- an effectiue alternatiue remedg is auailable, the juri:;diction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of htctia cannot be inuoked. The ratio laid douLn in the aforesaid jtd.gment also squarelg applies to the present facts of the case." (Ilrnphasis supplied) 9 The erstwhile High Court of Judicature Andhra pradesh at Hyderabad in Daganand Agdrual and others (Supra 3), held as under Section 23 entttles an "...As could be seen. tication [n the Dbtnct Court t n the euent o 99g!e;!s to fik: an anu dispu te ari.s[nq amonq the committe e or the nrcmbers of the soctetu in respect of anu matter relatinq to the o,ffairs of the societu. Ltntler Section 2(h) of the Act the expression ,member' hcs been deftned as under: nu:mber o u "2(h). 'Aember' tneans e erson indiuidual c,r body corporate, uho/ tuhicll hauing been admitted to members hin in anu societu has not regi-stered c'r ceased to be o ntember, or been remoued from membe,r.ship, in accordance uith the bge lau.ts of that societA." A reading of the aboue proublon shous that onlg tlose persorts u.tho are rttnoued from the membership in accordance tuith the byelatus are r.ot brought within the meaning of "member". TLrus on a combined read.ing of Sectioa 23 and. Section 2 lh) it is clear that a rnember of the societu can stlonhis remciual r Sectlon 23 of the Acton the ba lnuoklns the remcdu unde i i I I I I I I ,l I 7 sr,s J cNtL RET rsK)N ETtTk)N No.9248 OF 2024 ground that his remoual Tuas not in accordance tuith the bge-lau'ts of the societg." (Emphasis Supplied)

10. A plain reading of the above would make it crystal clear that the dispute, which is arising arnong melnbers of the society in respect of the affairs of the Sociery, which is registered under the Act, falls within the ambit of Section 23 of the Act. 1 1. On the aforesaid touchstone, in the instant case, it is noteworthy that the petitioner served as president of respondent No.1-Society during the year 2O2O-2O22 and when the petitioner intends to contest the subsequent elections for various posts in respondent No.l-society as per the Notifred schedule dated

17.O3.2O24, the Election Committee of respondent No'l-State rejected the nomination of the petitioner. Pertinently, the I ( petitioner, who is the then president of respondent No.l-Society for the year 2O2O-2O22 is entitled to hle a petition under Section 23 of the Act as the dispute is in respect of the alfairs of respondent No.l-Societ5r. In view of the foregoing analysis and peculiar facts and circumstalces of the case, this Court having respectful agreement with the view taken by the High Court of Andhra Pradeshand the Erstwhile High Court of Judicature, .-",_,;.E,.. i; 8 s(s,J I:N1L REVISIAN PETITION NO.224A OF 2024 Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in the aforesaid judgments, is of the considered opinion that ends of justice rvould be met if a direction is given to the trial Court to nunrber the SOp SR No.4493 of 2023 arrd dispose of the same on merits after hearing both the parties.

12. With th e above direction, the Civil Rt:r,ision petition is allowed and the order dated OS.OL.2O24 passed in SOp SR No.4493 of 2023 by the trial Court, is hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall a.lso stand closed To, //TRUE COPY// SD,'- L LAKSHMI BABU DEPUTY REgISTRAR \r SECTION OFFICER

1. The lll Additional District and Sessions Judge cum-ll r\dditional Metropolitan Sessrons J udge-cr.im-Principal Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri Disirict at Kukatpally 2 One CC to Sri Girija Shanker Sharma, Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CD Copies VH'PSi, i I I I I I i I I I HIGH COURT DATED: 1910312025 ORDER CRP.No.2248 o12024 0 3 APn 2[25 P C) 1tlE ST4 r * O6,SpaTC,H -\t' t i i I I I t i I t I i I I I I i i I i ! I t I ! I ALLOWING THE CRP 5