ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the respondents in S.O.P.No. 179 of 2018 against the order dt.11.08.2022 passed therein by the Principal District Judge at Bhongir.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the SOP.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the CRP are that the petitioner claiming to be a member of respondent No. 2 society has filed S.O.P.No. 179 of 2018 before the Principal District Judge’s Court, Bhongir under Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 seeking to pass a decree granting mandatory injunction/direction to the respondents to convene general body meeting, to conduct general elections and to furnish statements of account and balance sheet of respondent No. 2 society to all its members.

4. The respondent No. 2 filed its counter/written statement objecting to the S.O.P. on two grounds:

(i) The petition under Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is not maintainable as the said Act has already been repealed by the Amendment Act 35 of 2001 which was effective from 09.08.2001 and that the same was named as the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001.

(ii) The petitioner in the SOP is not a member of the 2nd respondent society on the date of filing of the petition as he has already been removed from the membership of the society vide unanimous resolution passed by the society on 14.08.2017 vide resolution No. 4/1. It was thus stated that the petitioner has no locus standi to seek any relief against the society.

5. The Principal District Court at Bhongir however allowed the S.O.P. As regards the first objection about the maintainability of the S.O.P. in view of the repeal of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the Court below observed that mere quoting of a wrong provision of law by the counsel in the petition is not a ground for its rejection and for this purpose, the Court below placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Payala Gopi vs. Tiebeam Technologies India Private Limited and Others, 2015 (4) ALT 153. As regards the second objection that the petitioner is not a member of the 2nd respondent society, the Civil Court has observed that though the petitioner has not filed any receipt to show that he is a member or executive member of respondent No. 2 society, respondent No. 1, in his cross-examination has admitted the membership certificate dt.15.07.2008 of the petitioner. Further as regards the removal of the petitioner from the primary membership for his illegal acts by passing a unanimous resolution and therefore the petitioner has no locus standi to file the SOP, the Court below has held that the respondents have not filed a copy of the resolution and also have not filed any evidence that respondent No. 2 society has followed the due procedure for removal of the petitioner from the membership of the society. Thus, both the objections were rejected and the S.O.P. was allowed. Challenging the same, the present CRP is filed by the respondent society and its President.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners, Sri R.A.Chary, while reiterating the grounds raised in the CRP and also the contentions raised in the counter filed by the respondents in the S.O.P., submitted that the reliance of the Court below on the decision of this Court in the case of Payala Gopi vs. Tiebeam Technologies India Private Limited and Others (supra) is misplaced. He submitted that in the said case, the facts were totally different and the Hon’ble High Court was considering the case where an interim application was made by misquoting the provision of law, but the said principles cannot be applied to an application which is filed under a repealed Act. He further placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Kanigolla Lakshmana Rao vs. Gudimetla Ratna Manikyamba and Another, 2003 (2) ALD 196 for the proposition that the petition would have to be filed only under Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2