ORDER
J. Chelameswar, J.
1. These three civil revision petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against various interlocutory orders passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Guntur in I.A. No. 1279 of 2002, I.A. No. 1278 of 2002 and I.A. No. 1277 of 2002 in O.S. No. 350 of 2002 by separate orders dated 17-9-2002.
2. The facts of the case are that the first petitioner herein is alleged to be an ecclesiastical body registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the other petitioners are the defendants and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the above mentioned suit. The first petitioner admittedly is a religious organisation with its Headquarters located at Guntur. The first petitioner-society is brought into existence with the main object of spreading “Gospel to the masses”. As part of its activity the first petitioner established several prestigious educational institutions, hospitals, training centres etc. The petitioners 5 to 8 are some of such institutions.
3. The activity of the first petitioner, even according to the plaint averments, is required to be carried on in accordance with its constitution and bye-laws. Admittedly, for the purpose of managing the affairs of the society it’s constitution and bye-laws provide for the establishment of a Managing
Committee headed by a President, Treasurer etc. The further details are not available on record.
4. From the plaint it appears that such Managing Committee is required to be elected under the constitution of the society by the general body of the society in a convention to be held once in two years at a time and place determined by the “Executive Council”.
5. The respondents herein, who are the plaintiffs in the above-mentioned suit, also claim to be the members of the first petitioner-society. The petitioners allege that the election to the Executive body of the first petitioner-society took place on 31-5-2001 duly electing the office bearers. The respondents in the present suit in substance challenge the said election and in fact the prayer in the suit reads as follows:
“The plaintiffs therefore pray that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree and judgment in their favour and against the defendants.
(a) for a declaration that the 40th Biennial Convention said to have been held on 31-5-2001 at Shade Girls High School, Rajahmundry is invalid, inoperative and insignificant and unenforceable.
(b) Consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 4 from holding office, acting, discharging responsibilities as the President and Treasurer of the Church and Bursar of colleges.
(c) Consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants 5 to 9 from in any way accepting, honouring, permitting and allowing any kind of interference by the 1st and 2nd defendants in the matters of pertaining to the admission, appointments and administration of educational institutions including the schools and colleges.”
6. It may not be necessary for the present purpose to deal in detail the various allegations made in the suit by the respondents herein for seeking the relief such as the one extracted above. Along with the suit the respondents herein filed various interlocutory applications in I.A. Nos. 1279 of 2002, 1278 of 2002 and 1277 of 2002.
7. I.A. No. 1277 of 2002 was filed for an injunction restraining the petitioners 2 to 4 herein from discharging their duties as President, Treasurer and Bursar of the first petitioner-society. I.A. No. 1278 of 2002 was filed seeking an injunction against the respondents 5 to 9 restraining them from permitting the petitioners 2 to 4 from interfering with the matters pertaining to the admissions, appointments and administration of the said educational institutions. I.A. No. 1279 of 2002 was filed for the appointment of a receiver for the management of the first petitioner-society. All these three applications were allowed by the impugned orders in these revision petitions and hence the present revision petitions.
8. The present petitions are filed alleging that the filing of the suits and obtaining of the interim orders mentioned above, is the sheer abuse of the process of the law having regard to the factual background in which such suits came to be filed.
9. According to the petitioners herein, in the 40th Biennial Convention where some of the petitioners were elected to be the members of the Managing Committee of the first petitioner-society was held on 31.5.2001 at Stall Girls High School. It is this election which the respondents herein questioned in the suit as can be seen from the prayer in the suit which is already extracted above. It appears from the record that on 20.4.2001 a suit in O.S. No. 163 of 2001 was came to be filed on the file of the learned Principal
Senior Civil Judge, Guntur and an interim injunction restraining the holding of the Convention was obtained. On contest, the said ex parte injunction was vacated on 23.5.2001 and thereafter on 31.5.2001 the above said Convention was held and the petitioners claim that the election of the members of the Managing Committee took place at the said Convention. Aggrieved by the vacation of the injunction order the plaintiff in the above said suit filed CMA No. 13 52 of 2001 in this Court and the same was dismissed by an order of this Court dated 3.6.2001. Not satisfied with the result, an LPA No. 289 of 2001 was preferred and the same was also dismissed on 25.1.2002.
10. Subsequently a suit in O.S. No. 3 of 2001 was filed on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam, seeking declaration that the election of the second petitioner herein and other officers in the Convention held on 31.5.2001 is not valid and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining them from discharging the functions. In the said suit, I.A. No. 398 of 2001 was filed in which an ex parte interim injunction was granted. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants in the above said suit including the second petitioner herein filed C.M.A. No. 1888 of 2001 and the same was allowed in part on 16.8.2001 allowing the elected body to discharge its functions with a direction to the learned District Judge to dispose of the injunction petition on merits. Subsequently, the learned District Judge after hearing both sides dismissed the injunction petition on 1.10.2001. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned District Judge, an appeal in C.M.A. No. 211 of 2002 was filed in this Court, which was dismissed by this Court on 25.4.2002 directing the learned District Judge to dispose of the suit expeditiously. It appears the trial of the said suit commenced.
11. Thereafter another suit in O.S. No. 6 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional
District Judge, Machilipatnam came to be filed seeking the relief of declaration that the proceedings of the Bienniel Convention held on 31.5.2001 invalid. Once again in I.A. No. 297 of 2001 in the said suit an interim injunction was obtained on 24.5.2002 restraining the elected body from discharging its functions. On contest the said injunction was vacated on 13.9.2002, which happened to be a Friday, and on the next working day i.e., on 16.9.2002 the present suit came to be filed.
12. Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the above mentioned facts speak volumes about the bona fides of the present litigation. The only possible inference that can be drawn is that the judicial process is being abused to prevent the members of the elected body from discharging their functions. He therefore submitted that the matter called for the intervention under the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
13. In the background of the above mentioned allegations; on 27.9.2002 when these matters are appeared in the list for the first time an interim suspension of the impugned order was granted. On 4.10.2002 all these revision petitions were admitted and a further interim order came to be passed as follows:
“Interim suspension of the impugned orders; however, the petitioners are directed not to alienate any one of the properties of the ‘Andhra Evangelical Luthern Church’ – or create any encumbrance on any of the properties until further orders of this Court.
Post all these revisions for ‘final hearing’ before the appropriate Court on 21st October 2002, after obtaining necessary orders from the Hon’ble The Chief Justice.”
14. Subsequently, by an order from the Hon’ble The Chief Justice dated 18.10.2002 the matters are listed before me for final hearing.
15. After the interim orders came to be passed by this Court, another I.A., was filed in the above mentioned O.S., praying that the respondents 1 to 4 therein (petitioners herein) be restrained from calling any meeting or conducting any meeting. To the utter shock and disgust of this Court it is brought to the notice of this Court that the learned Trial Judge by a docket order dated 11.10.2002 passed a status quo order. In fact the relevant portion of the said order reads as follows:
“To my little experience goes as per telegraphic orders received by this Court, the orders passed by this Court in I.As 1277,1278 and 1279/2002 were suspended and it is represented by learned counsel the matter was posted for final hearing on 21.10.2002 and it is appearing that Civil Revision Petition was filed challenging the impugned orders passed in the above application and the Hon’ble Court pleased to suspend those orders. By virtue of the Telegram orders there was no expression by the Hon’ble High Court directing this Court to stop all further proceedings until they passed further orders.
The circumstances existing not going on understand that the Lower Court is allowed to proceed with the suit rather than discontinue the proceedings. It is well settled law under Section 94 of the CPC whenever ends of justice is interested and interference is needed, the Court shall certainly come to the operation to protect justice.
In order to keep the state of things presented before the High Court intact without any changes, I feel it is necessary to prevent both the parties from conducting meetings and such other proceedings calling upon people of various places for doing something because the final hearing of the CRPs., in High Court are being posted to 21.10.2002 and in the meantime from tomorrow onwards the Courts remained closed for Dasara vacation. Till such time no institutions of the respondents also not functioned during those days. In those circumstances no interim damage is going to occur even to the petitioners and
respondents to convene their respective meetings till hearing of the High Court is completed on 21.10.2002 and get the orders of the High Court obtained.
In these circumstances, I am inclined to pass an order directing both the parties to maintain status quo and not to conduct any meetings without prejudice to the functioning of the respondent No. 2 as President of the Church and his administration in the normal course as ordered by the High Court in CRP No. and the petitioners and respondents are directed accordingly. The petition posted for counter and hearing on 22.10.2002.”
16. The attitude of the learned Judge in passing such an order calls for an examination on the administrative side of this Court.
17. Apart from that the first petitioner admittedly is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. In fact the respondents who are the plaintiffs in the above-mentioned suit admit the same in the plaint. Though the respondents are not very categoric in the plaint as to which is the law under which the first petitioner-society is registered, this Court can take legal notice of the fact that earlier there were two Enactments which were in operation in the State of Andhra Pradesh – one is the Societies Registration Act 1860 (Central Act 21 of 1860) and the other is Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act 1350 Fasli. Both the Enactments stood repealed by Section 32 of the Act 35 of 2001 called ‘Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act 2001’. Section 32 of the said Act reads as follows:
“32. Repeals and Savings:–(1) The Societies Registration Act, 1860, in its application to the Andhra area of the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350-F are hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the said Acts (including any order, rule, form,
regulation, certificate or bye-laws) in the exercise of any power conferred by or under the said Acts shall be deemed to have been done or taken in the exercise of the powers conferred by or under this Act as if this Act was in force on the date on which such a thing was done or action taken.”
18. The Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 is a comprehensive enactment, which deals with the registration, management, administration, dissolution and winding up of the societies in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The provisions of the present Act govern the activities of such societies in all aspects. In view of the language of Sub-section (2) of Section 32, the activity of those societies registered under the repealed enactments also is governed by the provisions of the new Act of 2001. Section 23 of the Act deals with the disputes regarding the management, which reads as follows:
“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, 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.”
19. It can be seen from the above, the disputes arising among the “committee” which is defined to mean a body of the persons to whom the management of the society is entrusted by its bye-laws or the members of the society in respect of any matter relating to the affairs of the society is required to be resolved under the provisions of either the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or by filing an application to the District Court concerned. Therefore, in my view, the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain the disputes, which would fall within the ambit of Section 23 of the Act, is
by a necessary implication barred. The dispute involved in the present case is in my view squarely falls within the ambit of Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 extracted above.
20. The legal principle regarding the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court fell for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Venkataraman & Co. v. State of Madras, . A Constitutional Bench of majority held as follows:
“.. ..If a statute imposes liability and creates an effective machinery for deciding questions of law or fact arising in regard to that liability, it may, by necessary implication, bar the maintainability of a civil suit in respect of the said liability. ..”
21. Once again a Division Bench of this Court in a case reported in Somasundaram v. District Collector., , held at paragraph 12 as follows:
“.. ..The general rule is that when jurisdiction has been conferred upon a special Court for investigation of particular matters such jurisdiction is exclusive …”
22. Therefore, in my view, the jurisdiction of the ordinary Civil Courts under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to inquire into the disputes arising between the members of the Managing Committee of a Society or the members of the Society insofar as that dispute pertains to any matter relating to such a Society are required to be settled only in accordance with the mandate of Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 i.e., by an application made in the concerned District Court.
23. It must be stated here, the learned Counsel for the respondents raised a specific objection that the question of jurisdiction discussed earlier was not raised either in the
lower court or in the present revision petitions by the petitioners and therefore this Court should not go into such question. I regret my inability to accept the said submission, for the reason, that it is the constitutional obligation and duty of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to superintendent the functioning of the Courts or Tribunals subordinate to this Court and see that they do not derelict in discharge of the duties in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on them or arrogate jurisdiction which is not conferred on them.
24. Therefore the civil revision petitions are allowed as prayed for.
25. As already observed in the Judgment, that the attitude of the Trial Judge in passing an interim order dated 11th October, 2002, calls for an examination on the administrative side. The Office is directed to place the copy of this Judgment before the Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice, for appropriate further action in this regard.