Dakka Bheem Prakash Bharath Mohan v. Vikas Nagar Welfare Society

Petition under section J51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit fired in support of rhe p^etrti;n, inJH'Jt''b.oy1 mav be preased to sray the proceedings in o.s No 8 0f zdz.t on tte iire 5i ro XX Junior civir Judge, crty Civil Court, Hyderabad pending disposal oi tf,l" nuri-.,on petition. Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. VADEENDRA JOSHI counsel for the Respondent Nos- 1 to 4 : M/s pHrlrx LAW F|RM The Court made the following ORDER: .i HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMT NARAYANA ALIS'HETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3 463 0F 202. ORDER: ThisRevisionPetitionisdirectedagainstorlerdated rc.09.2024 in I.A.No.461 of 2021 in OS'No'8 of 2021 passed by the XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court' Hyderabad' 2. Heard Sri Vadeendra Joshi, Ieamed counsel lc r revision petitioner, and M/s Phitix Law Firm' appearing forespondent No.4. 3. The petitioner is defendant No'l' respondent No: '1 to 4 are plaintiff Nos. I to 4 and respondent Nos'5 to 1 I are deler dant Nos'2 to 8, respectively, in the suit' For convenience' hert inafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit' 4. The facts of the case in brief, required for adjudication of the present Revision Petition, are that plaintiffs hled the suit for the following reliefs:- @) declaring lhat Defenctants I to 7 \rere/ar( tlot members of 2nd Plaintiff Society and that a'L the resolutions and consequenlial actions and lransa:tiotts taken by the Defendants I to 7 or her men or agents in tle name of lhe 2nd Plaintiff Societ.v, without any autho"ity as illegaL, null and void ab initio and as such' ot e not binding on the tst Plaintiff Society and its mernbers. 2 LNA, CRP.No.J46 of 2024 (b) declaring that the VIKAS SOCIETy Regd.No.90g/19g3 was wound up by the special resolution of its General Body dated 09.03.2002 and its assets, tiabilities, bootc of accounts etc., along with the members were transferued to VIKAS NAGAR ||/ELFARE SOCIETY Regd No.2098/2001 and consequently direct the Registrar of Societies, Red Hills, Hyderabad to take the same on record. (c) declaring that the lst Special General Body meeting of VIKAS SOCIETY Regd.No.9)8/t983, dated t2.t 1.2017 and the 2 Special General Body meeting of VIKAS SOCIETY, Reg. No 908/1963, doted 09. 12.2017 are illegal, invalid, non-est in the eye of law and. consequently, direct the Registrar of Societies, Red Hills, Hyderabad to delete the said resolutionfrom record. (d) granting perpetual injunclion restraining the Defendants I to 7 or their men or agents herein from interfering and meddling in any manner with the alfairs of the PlaintiffNo.l Society in the name of the plaintiffNo.2 Society which was wound up on 09.03.2002."

5. Defendant No.1 fited an application under Order VII Rule 1 I CPC to reject the plaint as baned by law in view of Section 23 of the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred tb as 'Act, 2001'). In the said application, defendant No.1 averred that the suit pertains to business and disputes between two societies, viz., Vikas Nagar Welfare Society and Village \ ) LNA, J CRP-No.1'163 of 2021 r Improvement for Kids and Adults Society (Vikas Societ"); that as per Section 23 of the Act, 2001, in case of any dispute belween the members of the society and also the management or affairs of society, the same shoutd be adjudicated by Principal District Judge having original jurisdiction and as such' suit is bar: ed under Sections 9 and 12 of CPC and consequently' the plaint i; liable to be rej ected'

6. The plaintilfs flled counter and principally contt'nded that when the suit was filed, the Office of the trial Cot r.t took objection with regard to maintainability of suit' for which the plaintiffs have given clarification that defendant Nos'I to 7 are not members of plaintiffs' society and that they are clainring to be a , members of society and office bearers of society; that defendant Nos.l to 7 submitted false death certificates of orig nal office bearers of the society and fabricated and forged the rec lrds of the Executive Body of the society were submitted in the ye ar 20 I 7' It wasfurtheraveredthatthereliefsclaimedinthesritarefor declaration that defendant Nos.l to 7 are not members cf plaintiff No.2 society and that all the resolutions and consequen lial actions and transactions taken by defendant Nos.l to 7 acting on behalf of 4 LNA, CRP.No.3463 of 2024 plaintiff No.2 society are nult and void and for other such declarations, therefore, the suit is maintainable. It was further aveffed that Section 23 of the Act, 2001, mandates that dispute arising among the committee or members of society in respect of any matter relating to affairs of society, any member of the society can proceed with under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or may file an application in the District Court concemed. However, in the present suit, since defendant Nos. 1 to 7 are not members of plaintiff No.2 society, Section 23 of the Act, 2001, is not applicable and the suit is proper and maintainable.

6.1. The plaintiffs further averred that in view of the aforesaid clarification given by them, the suit was numbered by the Office of trial Court, therefore the application filed by defendant No.1 is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. The trial Court, considering the pleadings of both the parties, i.e., defendant No.l on one hand and plaintiffs on the other hand and also the contentions raised by their respective learned counsel, dismissed the application vide order dated 10.09.2024, with an observation that suit involves issues of false representation and \ \ 5 LNA, J CR1t.No.346J of 2024 fraudulent action by individuals who are not legitimatr: members of society and as such, jurisdiction of civil Court is prope r and the suit is maintainable.

8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner subnritted that the issues raised in the plaint pertain to disputes arisir g/relating to affairs of society, therefore, the suit is clearly barred r_,nder Section 23 of the Act, 200i, r/w Sections 9 and 12 CPC He further submitted that the trial Court erred in observing tha the dispute lalls outside the scope of Telangana Societies Act since it is. the specific case of the plaintiffs that names of deferrdants were recorded in the register of societies and the suit has ber)n filed only upon refusal of the Registrar of Societies to delete thr: documents submitted by defendant Nos. I to 7 from the record of rhe Registrar of the Societies, thus, the dispute is squarely covere,d under the provisions of the Telangana Societies Act. Therefore, tlre impugned order passed by the trial Court is erroneous and based :n improper appreciation of the provisions of the Act, 2001, and rccordingly, prayed this Court to allow the Revision Petition.

9. Irr sdpporl of his submissions, leamed counsel for revision petitioner relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Suprerne Court in / ./ 6 LNA, CRP.No.3463 of 2024 Patil Aulomation Private Limited qnd others Vs. Rakheja Engineers Private Limitetlt and the judgments of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh rn Andhra Evangelical Luthern Church, Guntur and others Vs. B.Syamsuntlar ond olhers2 and Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan Memorial Educational Society, Nellore Districl Vs. District Registrur of Socieities, Nellore and others3

10. Per contra, Leamed counsel for the respondent submitted that the trial Court on due consideration of the contentions raised by the petitioner as well as the respondent, has rightty dismissed the application and no grounds are made out to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the trial Court. He further submitted that the suit is filed to declare that defendant Nos. I to 7 are not members of plaintiff society and that all the resolutions and consequential actions and transactions made by them as null and void, as such, Section 23 of the Act,2001 has no application to the instant case since defendant Nos. 1 Io 7 are not members of the plaintiff society and thus, prayed to dismiss the application. ' (2022) 10 scc 1 2 2022 SCC Online AP 1134 \ zooz SCC Ontine Ap 623 \ 7 LNA, J CRI' No.3463 of 2024 I l. Before examining the merits of the case. for better appreciation, it is appropriate to extract Section 23 of the Act, 2001 , which reads as hereunder:- " Dispute regarding management- In the event of any dispute arising among the Commillee or the members of the society, in respe.:t of any motter reloting to the affairs of the society, any member of the society may proceed with the discute under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Central Act 26 of I 996., , or may file an application in the District Court conce, ned and the said court shall after necessary inquiry ,tass such orrler as it may deem fit. "

12. lt is also apposite to extract Section 9 of CpC, which is as hereunder:- "Courts to try all civil suits unless barred - The Courls shall (subject to the provisions he .ein contained) hove jurisdiction to try ait suits of a ,.ivil nature excepting suits of which their cognizancr is either expressly or impliedly barred.,'

13. A conjoint reading of Section 23 of the Act, 2001 and Section 9 CPC, it is clear that the Courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature except in certain cases where spe<:ific statutes provide for an exclusive adjudicatory forum, like tte disputes ,/ 8 LNA, CR P.No.3163 of 2024 relating to management and affairs of society among the Committee or members of society, etc.

14. In the case on hand, though defendant Nos.l to 7 claim to be members of plaintiff No.2 society, the suit is filed for declaring them as not members of plaintiff No.2 society. Further, it is the specific case of the plaintiffs rhat defendant Nos. I to 7 along with defendant No.S played fraud and fabricated some documents and placed the same before the Registrar of Societies.

15. Thus, it is manifest that the crux of the dispute is with regard to membership of defendant Nos.l to 7 in plaintiff No.2 society, which is a civil matter conceming the false claim of membership and thereby, the illegal actions of the said delendants. When the very membership of defendant Nos.l to 7 in plaintiff No.2 society is under challenge, at any stretch, it cannot be said that the dispute is among the members .of the society regard ing management or affairs of the society. Further, the suit is filed to declare them as not members of plaintiff No.2 society, as such, the dispute in fact revolves with regard to the individuals. Furthermore, the averments in the plaint goes to show that the suit is not regarding the dispute arising among the Committee or the members 9 LNA, J CRP.No.:t463 of 2024 of the society in respect of any matter relating to affairs of the society. The said issue no way relates to intemal disputes 'egarding managing the alfairs of the society. Therefore, the suit dor s not fall within the ambit of 'disputes regarding management' ai:; def,ined under Section 23 of the Act, 2001, and hence, does not bar the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain the suit.

16. Coming to the application of ratio laid down by th,: Hon'ble Supreme Court and the erstwhile High Court of A.Ii. in the judgments cited supra by leamed counsel for the revision p,etitioner, in the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Patil Automalion Private Limited and others (cited supra), the grounds for rejection of plaint as enumerated under Order VII Rule I I CPC are reiterated. The said judgment relates to rejection of pla int in the matter arising out of Commercial Courts Acf. Therefore, the said judgment has no application to the present case since the acts and circumstances in the instant case and the said case are differ.ent.

17. In Khan-4bdul Gaffar Khan Memorial Educational Society, Nellore District, it is held that if a resolution is not validl., passed, or, if anyone is acting contrary to the provisions of the [r:t, or the 10 LNA, J CRP.No.3463 of 2024 bye-laws of the Society, the aggrieved pafty can approach the District Court by filing a petition under Section 23 of the Act.

18. In Andhra Evangelical Luthern Chturch'scase (cited supra), it is held that 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 concemed. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil Courts to entertain the disputes, which would falt within the ambit of Section 23 of the Act, is by a necessary implication barred.

19. There is no quarel with the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments. However, in the instant case, the suit is filed for the relief of declaring defendant Nos.l to 7 as not members of plaintiff No.2 society, therefore, it necessarily means that the management of ptaintiff No.2 society is not entrusted to the said defendants under or the bye-laws and as such, the issue cannot be said to be among the members of the society in respect of any matter relating tO the affairs of the society. Only in the latter case, the dispute is \ t I t I \ LNA, J CRP.i'to.3463 of 2021 required to be resolved under the provisions of either the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or by filing an application to the District Court concemed.

20. Further, perusal of the impugned order would ndicate that the trial Court, on examining the grounds raised in the application filed under Order VII Rule I I CPC and the submissiorls advanced by tearned counsel appearing on either side, has rightl T come to a conclusion that the issues invotved in the suit are false representation and fraudulent actions by individuals 'vho are not legitimate members of plaintiff No.2 society and rccordingly, dismissed the application.

21. This Court, on thorough analysis of applicatior of Section 23 of the Act, 2001, to the instant case, as afore discusl ed, is of the considered view that the petitioner failed to point out zny illegality or irregularity in the impugned order of the trial Cour: warranting interference by this Court by exercising its revisionarl jurisdiction under Article 221 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

22. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. t2 CRP.No,3463 of2024 '\, LNA, 23 Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. \, i \ //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To

1. The XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad- 2. One CC to SRl. VADEENDRA JOSHI Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to M/s Philix Law Firm, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies kuiish I HIGH COURT OATED:1510412025 ORDER CRP.No.3463 ot2024 i.r'. STa I4: ( 11 ill'l 2$[ \i \J /, '-T rrr(' DISMISSING THts CIVII- REVISION PE'I'IT'ION 6 '$ tt 6