ORDER :

Ravi Cheemalapati, J.

The Civil Revision Petition vide CRP No.361 of 2024 is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the orders dated 14.12.2023 passed in I.A.No.612 of 2023 in O.P.No.607 of 2017, whereas Civil Revision Petition vide CRP No.242 of 2024 is filed questioning the consequential order passed dismissing the O.P.No.627 of 2017 in view of dismissal order passed in I.A.No.612 of 2023.

2. Inasmuch as both the Civil Revision Petitions are interrelated relates to the said O.P.No.607 of 2017 and the result of the one will have bearing on the other, both of them are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. The facts that led to filing of these Civil Revision Petitions, in brief, are that:

(i) The Civil Revision Petitioners filed O.P.No.607 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the learned District Judge, Visakhapatnam against the respondents herein and others under Section 23 of the A.P.Societies Registration Act, 2001.

(ii) The respondent nos.1 to 3 in the said petition filed I.A.No.612 of 2023 under Order-II, Rule-2, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘CPC’) to dismiss the O.P being barred under Order-II, Rule-2 CPC, since the husband of the petitioner in O.P. earlier filed O.P.Nos.1053 & 1124 of 2007 and 786 of 2008 before the same Court on the same cause of action, which were withdrawn later without seeking leave of the Court.

(iii) The petitioner in the main O.P. filed counter contending that since the earlier petitions were not decided on merits, the provisions of Order-II, Rule-2 and Order-II, Rule-11 CPC, which speak about res judicata, cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case. It is further stated in the counter that even otherwise, res judicata is not a ground for rejection of the petition under Order-VII, Rule-11 CPC. It is further stated in the counter that the present O.P. is filed altogether on the different cause of action and can be maintained since filed on an independent cause of action.

(iv) The trial Court, upon perusal of the facts of the case and considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, having observed that the provisions of Order-II, Rule-2 and Order-XXIII, Rule-1(4) of CPC are not applicable, however since the earlier Ops were not pressed subsequent to filing of the present O.P.No.607 of 2017, bar under Order-IX, Rule-9 CPC gets attracted, as per which the petitioner cannot maintain the present O.P.No.607 of 2017 and accordingly, I.A.No.612 of 2023 was allowed and O.P.No.607 of 2017 was dismissed.

(v) Questioning the said orders, these Civil Revision Petitions were filed by the petitioners in O.P.No.607 of 2017.

4. Heard Sri Sai Sanjay Suraneni, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Dr.K.A.Paul, party-in-person in both the CRPs.

5. Sri Sai Sanjay Suraneni, learned counsel for petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the counter filed before trial Court and the grounds of Civil Revision Petitions, would contend that the learned trial Judge erred in applying the provisions of CPC to the petition filed under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 and further the learned trial Judge erred in rejecting the O.P. by invoking the power under Order -9, Rule- 9 CPC, 1908, even though there is a specific provision under Order-7, Rule-11 CPC. He would further contend that the learned trial Judge erred in dismissing the O.P.at the threshold instead adjudicating the matter on merits. He would further contend that causes of action for filing the subject O.P. and the earlier O.Ps.are entirely different and distinct. He would further contend that the main relief sought in the subject O.P.that the respondent No.1 and his henchmen obtained renewal from respondent no.5 on 18.02.2017 for both the societies by incorporating their names as office bearers by playing fraud is entirely different and not covered by the earlier O.P.Nos.1053, 1124 of 2007 and O.P.No.786 of 2008, however the learned