Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Rev.Mylabattula Ananda Samson ... vs Rev.Sarakula Syam Sundar, on 13 December, 2022

Bench: Subba Reddy Satti

        HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

           CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2028 of 2022

   Between:

   Rev.Mylabattula Ananda Samson Martins, S/o
   Ananda John Bab Martis, aged about 51
   years, Occ: AELC Parish Pastor, (shown in
   SOP No.6/2022 as R/o Sunkara Paddaiah
   Street, Rest House Road, Bhimavaram), R/o
   Narsapur, West Godavari District.
                                                   ... Petitioner.
               Versus

   Rev.Sarakula Syam Sundar, S/o Suryarao,
   aged about 48 years, Occ: Pastor, (shown in
   SOP No.6/2022 as R/o Christ Luthern
   Church, Narsapur), R/o Flat No.202, Karnam
   Apartment, Rustumbada, Narsapur, West
   Godavari District and another.
                                            ... Respondents.

Counsel for the petitioner            : Sri DVVSSNH Bhujanga Rao
Counsel for respondents               : Sri J.Saraschandra Babu

                              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,

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. Revision petitioner, being

respondent in SOP filed I.A.No.1135 of 2022 under Order VII

Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint, mainly placing reliance

upon Hon'ble Apex Court in Terapalli Dyvasahata Kumar's

case. Before filing of S.O.P.No.6 of 2022, revision petitioner

filed suit O.S.No.70 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Junior

Civil Judge, Narsapur. In fact, the revision petitioner also

filed S.O.P.No.1 of 2022 on the file of Principal District Judge,

Eluru and later withdrew the same.

13. A perusal of the record would indicate W.P.No.12680 of

2022 was filed on the file of the High Court and the same was

disposed of giving liberty to the parties to approach the civil

Court, where the suit and SOP are pending. After the order

of the High Court, S.O.P.No.1 of 2022 was withdrawn.

14. It is apt to extract Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, which

reads thus:

11. Rejection of plaint.-- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:--

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;

(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9.

Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.

15. A perusal of Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC would indicate

that the plaint can be rejected, when it does not disclose a

cause of action; undervalued; not properly valued; barred by

any law; where it is not filed in duplicate and fails to comply

with the provisions of rule 9. Order VII Rule 10 of CPC deals

with return of plaint, that at any stage of suit, subject to Rule

10A. Plaint will be returned to be presented to the Court in

which the suit should have been instituted.

16. In the case on hand, SOP was filed invoking Section 23

of the Act. Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies

Registration Act, 2001 reads thus:

23. Dispute regarding management - 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 the dispute under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (Central Act 26 of 1996), or may file an application in the District Court concerned and the said court shall after necessary inquiry pass such order as it may deem fit.

17. Considering the above provision, the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Terapalli Dyvasahata Kumar's case upheld the

order regarding maintainability of case filed on the file of

District Court, Visakhapatnam, while reversing the order of

the High Court. The finding of the Hon'ble Apex Court at

Paragraph-18 of the Judgment reads thus:

"18. In this view of the law, we set aside the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 19.09.2006. We must indicate that the impugned judgment is wrong on two counts. First, in applying the definition of "the Court" to "District Court" mentioned in Section 23, and then concluding that it would refer only to the principal Court of original jurisdiction of one particular place. It is also wrong in stating that as the 2001 Andhra Pradesh Act is a special enactment, general principles applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure would not apply, for the reasons given by us above."

18. The schedule property lies within the jurisdiction of the

District Court, West Godavari Eluru, particularly within the

jurisdiction of Narsapur. Suit O.S.No.70 of 2022 was filed by

revision petitioner and the same is pending before the I

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur. In W.P.No.12680 of

2022, this Court, while disposing of the writ petition, has

given liberty to the parties to approach the civil Court, where

suit and SOP are pending.

19. Considering facts of the case, learned District Judge

invoked Section 24 of CPC and transferred S.O.P.No.6 of

2022 to the Court of X Additional District Judge, Narsapur.

When SOP discloses cause of action, it cannot be rejected on