The main legal point established is that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to determine the jurisdiction of the District Court under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001.

JUDGMENT

R.F. Nariman, J.

The present appeal arises out of a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 19.09.2006, in which it has construed Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, as referring only to the Principal District Court of the place where the society is registered. The correctness of this judgment is assailed before us by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

2. Sometime in June, 2004, the appellant filed a petition under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 in which it asked for the following reliefs:

"(a) For a declaration that none of the respondents, their men or agents have any legal right whatsoever to call, hold or organize the annual convention of the members of CBCNC (No.16/48-49) or conduct elections for the office bearers of CBCNC (No.16/48-49) or its various boards, at any place including at Kakinada or Visakhapatnam under any notification or in pursuance of the notifications/pamphlets already passed/issued or proposed to be passed or issued either by themselves or through their nominees, privies etc;

(b) For a consequential relief for permanent injunction restraining the respondents their men and agents, from proclaiming or projecting as Office bearers of CBCNC (No.16/48-49) or from organizing the annual convention of the members of the CBCNC (No.16/48-49) or election of office bearers of CBCNC (No.16/48-49) members or its various boards at any place including at Kakinada or Visakhapatnam under any notification or in pursuance of the notifications/pamphlets already passed/issued or proposed to be passed or issued either by themselves or through their nominees, privies etc:

(c) To appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of holding an annual convention for all the members of the CBCNC (No.16/48-49), either in the month of January 2004 or immediately thereafter, as per the constitution and bye-laws of the CBCNC (No.16/48-49), and entrust the administration and management of all assets of CBCNC (No.16/48-49) to the office bearers so elected in the said elections, who shall be the rightful body to represent the CBCNC (No.16/48-49);

(d) For Costs; and

(e) For such other relief or reliefs as your Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

3. A preliminary objection was raised by means of an I.A. being I.A. No. 234 of 2004 in which it was contended that the petition filed at Visakhapatnam was filed in the wrong Court and hence was without jurisdiction.

4. The learned District Judge, by his judgment dated 17.01.2005, first observed that the expression "District Court" was not defined by the 2001 Act, and that this being so, he opined:

"Now, the law is well settled that when the special enactment did not specify the limits territorial jurisdiction of any Court prescribed under the said Act to entertain the litigation, the general provisions of C.P.C., regarding the said territorial jurisdiction, can be take into consideration. As can be seen from the A.P. Societies Act, it has not ousted the application of C.P.C., specifically. Therefore, when the Act is silent regarding the limits of territorial jurisdiction, and when the Act did not oust C.P.C., specifically, undoubtedly, the provisions of C.P.C., can be taken into consideration to decide the territorial jurisdiction of District Court concerned as envisaged U/sec.23 of the Act. Sec.20 C.P.C., envisages that the proceedings can be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the cause of action wholly or in part arises. Therefore, the present petition can also be filed within the jurisdiction of the Court where a part of cause of action arose."

Having held this, the learned District Judge dismissed the preliminary objection.

5. A Revision Petition filed before the High Court was, however, allowed, and the judgment of the District Judge was set aside by the High Court observing thus:

"On a comparative look at the expression used in the pr