ORDER

Respondent in SOP filed the above revision against the order dated 13.09.2022 in I.A.No.1135 of 2022 in S.O.P.No.6 of 2022 on the file of Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru.

2. 1st Respondent herein filed the S.O.P.No.6 of 2022 seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondent (revision petitioner herein) and his men from ever interfering with the administration affairs and to discharge the duties of petitioners 1 and 2 as parish pastor and chairman of petition schedule church i.e. Christ Luthern Church, Narsapur.

3. Pending the SOP, respondent filed I.A.No.1135 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the SOP.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended interalia that prior to filing of S.O.P.No.6 of 2022, he filed O.S.No.70 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur against the petitioner and six others for permanent injunction; that as per the order dated 28.06.2021 issued by Dr.Elia Ch, Moderator/President of Andhra Evangelical Luthern church, Guntur, he assumed charge as parish pastor of Christ Luthern church, Narsapur for a period of five years from 28.06.2021 to 31.06.2026; that when the petitioner filed S.O.P.No.6 of 2022 and tried to dispossess, he filed suit O.S.No.70 of 2022; that by suppressing the real facts, petitioner filed SOP under Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act (for short “the Act”) on the file of Principal District Judge, Eluru; that petition schedule property is located in Narsapur and the Principal Office is located at Broadipet, Becker Compound, Guntur and therefore, there is no cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of Eluru; that in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Terapalli Dyvasahata Kumar Vs. S.M.Kantha Raju (Dead) Thr. Lrs and Anr.1, S.O.P.No.6 of 2022 on the file of Principal District Judge, Eluru is not maintainable as also the petition does not disclose cause of action and thus, prayed to reject the SOP.

5. Counter was filed opposing the application. In the counter it was contended interalia that if the Court has no jurisdiction, SOP should be returned under Order VII Rule 10A of CPC and the petition under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC would not lie; that as per Sections 20 and 21 of CPC, SOP was filed before the Principal District Judge, Eluru and eventually prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Trial Court by order dated 13.09.2022 allowed the petition, in part, and dismissed the claim under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. However, by applying Section 24 of CPC,

1 AIR 2017 SC 4405

S.O.P.No.6 of 2022 is withdrawn from the file of Principal District Court, Eluru and transferred to X Additional District Court, Narsapur.

7. Aggrieved by the said order, the above revision is filed.

8. Heard Sri DVVSSNH Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri J.Saraschandra Babu, learned counsel for respondents.

9. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that S.O.P.No.6 of 2022 is filed on the file of Principal District Judge, Eluru and the Court has no territorial jurisdiction. He would also submit that in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Terapalli Dyvasahata Kumar’s case, the Court at Narsapur got jurisdiction, but not Principal District Judge, Eluru, since the church is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Narsapur. He would also submit that since S.O.P.No.6 of 2022 was filed on the file of Principal District Judge, Eluru, the Court below ought to have rejected the SOP, instead of transferring it under Section 24 of CPC to X Additional District Court, Narsapur.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents support the order of the Court below.

11. Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the Court below exceeded its jurisdiction in transferring the SOP to X Additional District Court, Narsapur from Principal District Judge Court, Eluru?

12. S.O.P.No.6 of 2022 was filed under Section 23 of the Act by respondents in the revision seeking perpetual injunction and other reliefs. R