( 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 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 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 defe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document