Point of Law :
For application of Section 23 of the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001, two requisites must be fulfilled. The first is, it must be a dispute among the Committee or the members of the society, and secondly, the dispute must be in respect of any matter relating to the affairs of the society. According to Cambridge Dictionary, the word ‘among’ means “happening or being included as part of a group of people or things” or “in the middle of or surrounded by other things”. It is settled law that where the words of a statute are absolutely clear and unambiguous, recourse cannot be had to the principles of interpretation, other than the literal rule. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of the legislative intent

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners/respondents in the S.O.P.No.1405 of 2018, challenging the order, dated 25.10.2018, passed in I.A.No.1183 of 2018 in S.O.P.No.1405 of 2018, by the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the record.

3. The respondent herein, who is a member of the petitioner No.1 Society, filed the subject O.P.No.1405 of 2018 before the Court below against the petitioner No.1 Society, the Secretary and President of the said Society (Petitioner Nos.2 & 3 herein), seeking certain substantial reliefs. The petitioners herein have filed the subject Interlocutory Application before the Court below under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the main petition, i.e., O.P.No.1405 of 2018 inter alia on the ground that the said petition is not maintainable under Section 23 of the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001 (for short, ‘the Act’). The Court below, vide impugned order, dated 25.10.2018, dismissed the subject interlocutory application. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner No.1 Society and the Secretary and President of the said Society (Petitioner Nos.2 & 3) filed this Civil Revision Petition.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/ respondents would contend that the relief sought by the respondent herein in the main O.P.No.1405 of 2018 is against the Society, by its member. In view of the mandate given under Section 23 of the Act, which mandates that in the event of any dispute arising among the Committee or the members of the Society in respect of matter relating to the affairs of the Society, any member of the Society may proceed with the dispute under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or may file an application in the District Court. In the instant case, the dispute is neither among the committee nor the members of the Society, but between a member of the Society and the Society itself. Hence, the Court below has no jurisdiction to entertain the subject O.P.No.1405 of 2018. The Court below ought to have rejected the subject O.P.No.1405 of 2018 and ultimately prayed to set aside the order under challenge and reject the main petition, i.e., O.P.No.1405 of 2018. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel had relied on the following decisions:

1. G.Bala Subrahmanyam and another Vs. Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others, 2014 (2) ALD 101

2. M.S.Madhava Rao and others Vs. D.V.K.Surya Rao, Member of Pithapuram Co-operative Bank, Pithapuram and others, AIR 1954 Madras 103

3. Maharashtra State Cooperative Housing Finance Corporation Limited Vs. Prabhakar Sitaram Bhadange, (2017) 5 SCC 623

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner would contend that the subject dispute falls well within the scope and ambit of Section 23 of the Act. The Court below has jurisdiction to entertain the subject O.P. filed by the respondent herein. The Court below rightly dismissed the subject interlocutory application. There is nothing to interfere with the same and ultimately prayed to sustain the order under challenge and dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel had relied upon the following decisions:

1. Andhra Evangelical Luthern Church, Guntur and others Vs. B.Syamsundar and others, 2003 (2) ALD 191

2. Ganta Jermaiah Vs. V.Paul Himamsu and others, 2008 (2) ALD 464

3. Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan Memorial Educational Society rep. by its General Secretary-cum- Correspondent Vs. District Registrar of Societies, Nellore and others, 2007 (6) ALT 16

4. Margadarshini Educational Society Vs. P.Subhashan and another, 2009 (3) ALD 655

5. S.M.Kantha Raju Vs. Terapalli Dyvasahata Kumar, 2007 (1) ALT 643

6. The A.P.Football Association and others Vs. Kurnool District Football Association, AIR 1982 AP 97

6. In view of the above rival contentions, the point that arises for dete