The District Court has jurisdiction over disputes related to societies, and the principle of res judicata does not apply when jurisdiction is questioned.

ORDER:

This revision petition is filed by the revision petitioners who are respondents in So.OP.No.1731 of 2007 against the respondents herein who filed the said So.OP., under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 (for short ‘the Act’) in relation to respondent No.1 herein – Society, with a prayer to enquire into the disputes thereof, and declare the respondents herein as founder members of Society and be entitled to all rights and benefits of Society. The said So.OP., was allowed vide order dated 01.12.2014 by the Principal District Judge, Warangal, declaring that the petitioner Nos.2 to 17 therein are members of Society, who are entitled for all rights and benefits of petitioner No.1 –Society therein, and the claim of respondents therein that they are not members of the Society was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, this Civil Revision Petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri D.Radhakrishna, learned counsel for petitioners/respondents, and Sri Resu Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for respondents/petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that resignation of respondents as founder members of the Society is a crucial fact that was overlooked by the trial Court, and emphasized that the respondents' own actions, as evidenced by Exhibits B.5 to 20 and B.28, demonstrate their intention to relinquish their membership and involvement with the Society and the same was not appreciated by the trial Court. He contended that the judgment in O.S.No.382 of 2001 dated 17.10.2006, and the public notice dated 31.7.2007, published in Eenadu District Edition, vide Exs.B.4, B.5, and 28 to B.30, and would unequivocally establish that the respondents had resigned from the Society. He lamented that the said evidence was sufficient for the trial Court to declare that the respondents had resigned from the Society's membership and the trial Court ought to have dismissed the So.O.P., in limine.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners had incessantly contended that the Society was already being represented by its Secretary, and that the same was recognized in the proceedings of O.S. No. 382 of 2001. As such, he specifically contended that the respondents have no locus standi to represent the Society, and that the trial Court ought to have dismissed the said So.O.P., on this ground alone. He averred that the trial Court erred in not applying the doctrine of res judicata based on the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.382 of 2001. He divulged that the respondents failed to enter the witness box, except for Respondent No.11, who is no longer a Member, and that the trial Court had mechanically passed impugned order without appreciating the evidence. Therefore, while advocating that the order under revision is liable to be set aside, and that the said So.O.P., ought to have been dismissed due to the overwhelming evidence placed by the petitioners, he prayed this Court to allow the revision petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 01.12.2014.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondents, vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners and contended that there were no illegalities in the impugned order and that the trial Court has rightly allowed the same. In support of his contention, he reiterated the averments made by them before the trial Court and placed emphasis on the provisions of Section 23 of the Act which says, “In the event of any dispute arising among the Committee or the members of the society, in respect of any matter relating to the affairs of the society, any member of the society may proceed with t