ORDER :

P. Naveen Rao, J.

1. Heard Sri Y. Rama Rao learned counsel for petitioner/defendant No. 1, and Sri J. Kanakaiah learned counsel for respondent No. 1/plaintiff.

2. Parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

3. Plaintiff filed O.S. No. 416 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge at Jangaon praying to grant decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their family members, servants, associates, agents, relatives etc from entering into or interfering in peaceful running of school activity in the school premises described more fully in the schedule appended to the suit plaint (hereinafter referred to as suit schedule property). According to plaintiff, Sudha Educational and Cultural Society was formed and registered in the year 2013 (Reg. No. 788/2013). The society established Sudha High School. In the year 2014 he has acquired suit schedule property on 5 (five) years lease to establish the school in the premises. Lease deed was executed on 26.5.2015 by the owner of the property Sri Rapaka Sudhakar. It is his case that lease was subsequently extended. Initially school was established to impart education upto 7th class, subsequently permission is granted to impart education upto 10th class. The administration of the school is taken care of by Sri Rapaka Vijaya Kumar, Correspondent of the school and General Secretary of the society. Plaintiff contents that defendants are total strangers, have no right or interest in the management of the plaintiff school. Plaintiff alleges that defendants became envious of the success of the school, started meddling with day to day running of the school, creating all sorts of nuisance, became violent, using abusive language in electronic media, illegally trespassed into the school premises by use of force.

4. Defendant No. 1 filed I.A. No. 556 of 2020 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC read with Sections 19 and 23 of Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001. It is averred that the school has no specific entity; that Rapaka Vijay Kumar is not the Secretary of the Society; that he was not authorized by the society to represent the society; that there is no separate body for the school to conduct day to day business; that the school is run by the society in which he is a member; that he is the co-owner of the school and absolute owner of the building. Therefore, on any dispute concerning the society governed by the 2001 Act, or on the dispute among the members of the society, the remedy is under Section 19 and Section 23 of the Act and suit is not maintainable.

5. The said plea of defendants was opposed by the plaintiff. By order against which this revision is filed, the trial Court dismissed I.A. No. 556 of 2020. The trial Court observed that first defendant is not a member of the society and as per the amendments notified on 27.8.2019 reflects Mr. Rapaka Vijay Kumar as General Secretary of the society.

6. The learned counsel for the first defendant reiterated the submissions made before the trial Court. He would submit that on a plain reading of the averments in the plaint would disclose that there is an inter se dispute among the members of the society and on issues concerning the society and on inter se disputes among the members, the suit is barred by Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC and therefore, suit ought to have been dismissed on that ground alone.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for plaintiff would submit that plaint cannot be rejected by referring to averments in a written statement or in the affidavit filed in support of interlocutory application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. As per Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC, plaint can be rejected only if averments in the plaint ex facie point out that it is barred by any law.

8. Before appreciating the respective contentions, it is appropriate to note the provision in Order VII Rule 11 [Rule 11. Rejection of plaint.-- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-- (a)where it does not disclose a cause of a