ORDER :

Heard Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri T.V.S. Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2.

2. The learned counsel for revision petitioner would submit that the revision petitioner is a member of the 1st respondent society, and he was removed from the roles of the society illegally by the 1st respondent society, and therefore, the revision petitioner filed an application U/s.23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001.

3. The learned counsel for revision petitioner submitted that the 1st respondent society was registered under the provisions of A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001; The revision petitioner is the member of the 1st respondent society; The revision petitioner was removed from the roles of the 1st respondent society illegally, and therefore, the revision petitioner filed an application U/s.23 of the A.P.Societies Registration Act, 2001 before the Prl.District Court, Visakhapatnam. He would further submit that the learned trial Judge erroneously held that the dispute relating to removal of a member from the roles of the society will not come under Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 and