The petitioner herein, who is the 5th respondent in the Court below in dispute raised under Section 23 of the A. P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 (for brevity the Act) at the instance of the respondent herein seeks to assail by way of this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the orders passed in I.A.No.234 of 2004 in O.P.No.13 of 2004, dated 17th January, 2005 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, rejecting an application filed by him under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to decide the maintainability of the main petition in O.P. No.13 of 2004 as a preliminary issue.

2. Heard Sri M. Chandrasekhar Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

3. Briefly stated facts are that in the petition filed under Section 23 of the said Act, the respondent herein who claiming to be one of the senior members of the society sought for declaration that the respondents therein, which include the petitioner herein, have no legal right whatsoever to hold annual convention and consequently for the relief of permanent injunction restraining them from holding any such convention by themselves and to appoint an advocate commissioner for the purpose of holding an annual convention. In support, the claim of the respondent, inter alia, runs on various grounds made against those respondents. It is not necessary to refer or go into any of those allegations at this juncture.

4. Raising an objection as to the very jurisdiction of the Court below in entertaining such petition under Section 23 of the Act on the ground that he himself viz. the petitioner herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.551 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada and another suit in O.S.No.18 of 2002 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada, concerning the various issues relating to the said society and the same are pending to which the respondent is a party but remained ex-parte and got filed the present petition at Visakhapatnam.

5. According to the petitioner as alleged in the affidavit, the Court at Visakhapatnam has no jurisdiction to entertain any petition under the provisions of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001, since Convention of Baptist Churches of Northern Circars was registered originally at Kakinada and even the Subordinate Body viz. Trust Association of CBCNC, is also registered at Kakinada and therefore, the Court at Visakhapatnam cannot take cognizance of any grievance or entertain any such dispute. As per the said provision, it contemplates that that authority where the dispute arose, has to entertain. Since, either of the societies are not registered at Visakhapatnam, the Court would not be competent to entertain. Therefore, it is prayed that the said issue as to the maintainability of the proceedings has to be decided as a preliminary issue.

6. Contesting the same, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent herein apart from denying the allegations as contained in the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is stated that the issue of maintainability of suit is a mixed question of law and fact and it cannot be decided as preliminary issue and further the application itself is misconceived one. That apart, cause of action arose at Visakhapatnam i.e. within the jurisdiction of the Court below, and therefore, the suit is maintainable. Even otherwise, it is stated that there is no bar under the provisions of the said Act to file applications under Section 23 of the Act at a place other than where the registered office is situated. It was further stressed therein that the suit is always maintainable at a place where the cause of action either wholly or partly arises. Therefore, the said application is liable to be dismissed.

7. On consideration of submissions made on behalf of either side, the Court below by framing the point as to whether the Cour