S. B. SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) WHETHER an appeal is maintainable against an order refusing an application for injunction purported to have been filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of civil Procedure read with Section 151 is the question referred to this Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court.

( 2 ) APPELLANTS were the petitioners before the learned Court below. They are working as Divisional Engineers in A. P. TRANSCO.

( 3 ) THEY filed a petition being o. P. No. 1361 of 2000 on the file of the Chief judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad under section 11 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 fasli (for short the Act ) for a declaration that the election scheduled to be held on 9-8-2000 to the 1st respondent-Association is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the procedure contemplated by the 2nd respondent in terms of his notification dated 7-7-2000.

( 4 ) IN the said proceedings, the appellants also filed an interlocutory application being i. A. No. 2109 of 2000 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of civil Procedure restraining the respondents from conducting the election scheduled to be held on 9-8-2000 to the 1st respondent- association. By an order dated 24-8-2000 the said application was rejected.

( 5 ) BEFORE the learned Single Judge a preliminary objection was raised as regards the maintainability of the appeal. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in T. Tirumana reddy v. APSEB Engineers Assn.

( 6 ) THE appellants, on the other hand, placed reliance upon a decision of the privy Council in Adaikappa Chettiar v. R. Chandrasekharan Thevar, which has been followed by the Supreme Court in maharashtra State Financial Corporation v. faycee Drugs and Pharmaceuticals contending that the appeal was maintainable.

( 7 ) MR. E. Manohar, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, would submit that having regard to Sections 4 and 141 of the Code of civil Procedure, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable in a proceeding under Section 11 of the Act and thus the right of appeal also must be held to be available to the appellants. Learned counsel would contend that the District judge is not a persona designata, but a Court. In support of the said contention reliance has been placed on Adaikappa Chettiar v. R. Chandrasekharan Thevar (supra), maharashtra State Financial Corporation v. Jaycee Drugs and Pharmaceuticals, (supra), n. Ramamurthy, In Re. Bathula Krishna brahmam v. Daram Chenchi Reddi and s. Elisha v. World Missionary Evangelism.

( 8 ) MR. M. Surender Rao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that an application under Section 11 of the Act cannot be treated to be a suit and as such the appeal is not maintainable. Strong reliance in this connection has been placed on a Full Bench decision of this Court in kutumba Rao v. Sesharatnamamba.

( 9 ) THE said Act was enacted to make law for determining the legal status of societies established or which may be established in future in Telangana area of the State of andhra Pradesh for the diffusion of knowledge and arts or for the fulfilment of public or religious purposes. Section 7 of the said Act provides for a suit. Section 11 of the Act reads thus: dispute regarding management: In the event of any dispute arising among the Managing Committee or the members of society, in respect of any management or dissolution of the society, any member of the society may file an application in the District court concerned and the said Court shall after necessary inquiry pass such order as it shall deem fit. Explanation: "district Court" shall mean, in the City of Hyderabad, First judge of the City Civil Court.

( 10 ) NO appeal is provided in terms of the provisions of the said Act either from an interlocutory order or from a final order passed in the proceedings. The Code of civil Procedure

Click Here to Read the rest of this document