The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dispute over the contract of license and its cancellation falls under the jurisdiction of the Endowments Tribunal as per the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, ousting the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

JUDGMENT :

Plaintiff in O.S.No.402 of 2017 before the learned XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada presented this civil miscellaneous appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 C.P.C. assailing the order dated 25.04.2018 in I.A.No.21 of 2018 in O.S.No.402 of 2017.

2. Respondent is Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam (for short ‘Devasthanam’) represented by its Executive Officer, Indrakiladri, Vijayawada. The appellant is a licensee which license was granted as he became the highest bidder in a tender quoted by the respondent-Devasthanam. The license that was granted was for a period of two years commencing from 01.06.2016 and stands terminated by 31.05.2018. Under this license the appellant was permitted to take spot photos at two points of Indrakiladri. License fee for the first year was Rs.36,06,000/-. License fee for the second year was Rs.39,66,600/-. Appellant remitted the first year license fee and did his work. In terms of the conditions he had given post-dated cheques towards the license fee for the second year. The first cheque given by him was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and that led to initiation of a criminal case for dishonour of cheque. Despite demands he failed to remit the license fee for the second year. It was in those circumstances, a show-cause notice was issued to him and thereafter by an order dated 18.12.2017 the Executive Officer of Devasthanam passed an order for cancelling the license that was granted to the appellant and he was directed to vacate the premises.

3. Challenging the correctness of that order, the appellant filed O.S.No.402 of 2017 before the learned Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. The prayer in the suit is as mentioned below :

1. For declaration, declaring that the order dt.18.12.2017 passed by defendant as illegal, arbitrary, improper, unjust and against the principles of natural justice;

2. For consequential relief of setting aside the order dt.18.12.2017 passed by defendant by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and continuance of the business of the plaintiff till the license period is completed i.e., 31.05.2018 by adjusting the amount paid by plaintiff i.e., Rs.36,06,000/- proportionately i.e. Rs.18,03,000/- for the first year and Rs.19,83,300/- for second year totaling Rs.37,86,300/- while permitting the plaintiff to deposit/pay the balance due amount of Rs.1,80,300/-;

3. For costs of this suit;

4. And for such other relief or reliefs as the Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.

4. During the pendency of that suit, respondent-Devasthanam filed I.A.No.21 of 2018 in O.S.No.402 of 2017 under Order VII Rule 11(d) and Section 151 C.P.C. seeking for rejection of the plaint. There are other applications filed by the licensee before the trial Court seeking for interim injunction and such other orders. Learned XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada considered I.A.No.21 of 2018 and the other two applications together and after due enquiry and after hearing arguments on both sides, passed the impugned order dated 25.04.2018 wherein he held that plaint that was presented disclosed cause of action and the claim made was not barred by any law and therefore, the prayer for rejection of plaint could not be ordered. However, the learned Additional District Judge took the view that by virtue of Sections 87 and 151 read with Section 162 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act, 1987’), the jurisdiction to decide the dispute vested with the Endowments Tribunal and not with the Civil Court. In that view of the matter, it thought that plaint could not be maintained before the Civil Court and therefore, exercising powers under Order VII Rule 10 C.P.C. it ordered for return of the plaint to be presented before proper Court.

5. It is that order which is challenged in this civil miscellaneous appeal. Appel