ORDER :

This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by order dated 29.10.2012, passed by the District Judge, East Godavari, in SOP(SR) No.7061 of 2012, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001, on the ground of jurisdiction.

The petitioner is a Society covered by the provisions under the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001. Petitioner has filed the aforesaid petition seeking directions against the respondents therein, to convene the general body meeting and to dissolve the present committee and elect new committee, apart from some other reliefs. Initially, the petitioner has filed such application before the II- Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Amalapuram, but the same was returned on the ground that said Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Thereafter, the application was filed before the learned Principal District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry. Even the said Court has rejected the application by impugned order, relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of [1]

S.M.Kantha Raju V. Terapalli Dyvasahata Kumar .

In this civil revision petition, it is argued by the learned counsel for petitioner Sri V.Narayana Reddy, that only the Principal District and Sessions Court of original jurisdiction is having authority to entertain and decide the applications filed under Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001, and in that view of the matter, the impugned order is passed without considering the maintainability of application in proper perspective. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel appearing for respondents that the relief sought by the petitioner does not fall under Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the provisions of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for or not, is a matter to be considered after entertaining the petition on merits, but at this stage, the only question that fall for consideration is whether the application filed under Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001, can be maintained before the Principal District Court or not. A perusal of Section 23 of the Act shows that such an application is maintainable before the District Court concerned and the ‘Court’ is defined under Section 2(d) of the Act as follows: “Court means, in the cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, City Civil Court and elsewhere, the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction”.

From the perusal of the aforesaid definition, it is clear that the ‘District Court’ referred under Section 23 of the Act is the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction i.e. the Principal District Judge’s Court of the District. As it is not in dispute that the application is filed before the Principal District Judge’s Court and as the said Court is having jurisdiction, the judgment in S.M.Kantha Raju’s case (supra), cannot be applied, having regard to the facts of the present case.

For the aforesaid reasons, the order dated

29.10.2012, passed by the District Judge, East Godavari, in SOP(SR) No.7061 of 2012, is set aside. The learned Principal District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, is directed to entertain the petition and consider the same on merits. It is made clear that whether the relief sought for by the petitioner falls within the purview of Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 or not, is left open and it is open for the Principal District Judge to decide the said issue after hearing the parties.

The revision petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.

As a sequel, CRP.MP.No.8747 of 2012 stands closed.

______________________

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J th

30 April 2013

ajr [1]

2007 (1) ALD 385