An order passed under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Act, 2001 is not appealable under the Code of Civil Procedure, and a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is maintainable against such an order.

ORDER :

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.

1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by six of the 13 contesting Respondents aggrieved by the order dated 15.06.2020 allowing the said SOP in favour of the respondents herein. The petitioners have also filed I.A. No. 1 of 2020, seeking a suspension or stay of the operation of the order dated 15.6.2020. The present order is being restricted to the question of maintainability of the revision petition and the interim orders, if any, that are to be passed

2. Respondent No. 1 is a Public Society registered with Registration No. 66/1959 under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. With the enactment of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Act, 2001 (for short "the Act"), the said Societies Registration Act, 1860 stood repealed in its application to the Andhra Area of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh by virtue of Section 32 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Act, 2001. Thereafter the provisions of "the Act" regulate the affairs of the respondent No. 1-society.

3. The respondents filed S.O.P. No. 32 of 2008 under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 against 15 Respondents. It may be noted that the Respondent No. 2, 3, 7, 11 and 12 in the SOP have passed away and Respondent No. 5 and 10 have not joined the petitioners in the present revision and are arrayed as Respondents 19 and 20 in the present revision with the endorsement that they are "not necessary parties". Respondents 14 and 15 are Bank officials who are made parties on account of the contention of the Respondents herein that the fixed deposits of the society are with these banks. A Memo was filed by respondents herein that the S.O.P. was not being pressed against the Respondent No. 13 in the S.O.P. However, he is arrayed as Petitioner Number 6 in this Revision.

4. The trial Judge after a trial in the matter had upheld the contention of the respondents herein and had allowed the S.O.P. by the impugned order dated 15.6.2020. As a result of the said order, it was declared that the petitioners herein and others who had been arrayed as respondent Nos. 1 to 12 were not members of the respondent No. 1-society and granted consequential injunction as prayed for. In addition to this, the first petitioner was also directed to furnish accounts to the respondent No. 1-society from the date of assumption of charge till he was expelled from the respondent No. 1-society on 19.8.2007.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have now approached this Court and sought an interim direction of suspension or stay of operation of the impugned order dated 15.06.2020.

6. Sri G. Ronald Raju, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that a revision was not permissible and as such, the main petition itself requires to be dismissed in limine. It is his case that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure need to be applied as the Act is silent on this aspect and consequently an appeal or miscellaneous appeal would be available to the petitioners herein and a revision under Article 227 would not be available to the petitioners herein.

7. Sri M. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petition is maintainable and both the counsel cited various judgments in support of their respective contentions.

8. Before adverting to the citations placed before this Court by both the counsel, it would have to be first recorded that the S.O.P. was filed under Section 23 of "the Act" and that there is no provision of appeal or further recourse, in the Act, against the orders of the Court under Section 23 of the said Act.

9. Sri G. Ronald Raju, learned counsel for the respondents cited a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai & others v. Tuticorin Educational Society and others (2019) 9 SCC 538. In that case a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution was ent