Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/1575/2025 of M ASHOK KUMAR Vs THE TRUST ASSOCIATION OF THE CONVENTION OF THE BAPTIST CHURCH OF THE NORTHERN CIRCARS on 18 December 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3163] FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1575/2025 Between: 1. M ASHOK KUMAR, S/O.
APHC010308672025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1575/2025
Between:
1. M ASHOK KUMAR, S/O. M. JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O. D NO.4-128, KUCHIPUDI VILLAGE MOVAA MANDAL, KRISHNA
DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE TRUST ASSOCIATION OF THE CONVENTION OF THE BAPTIST
CHURCH OF THE NORTHERN CIRCARS, , A REGISTERED
SOCIETY
UNDER
THE
PROVISIONS
OF
SOCIETIES
REGISTRATION ACT 1860, REP BY IT CHAIRMAN DASARI YACOB
S/O. LATE MOSES, CHRISTIAN, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O.
VUYYURU, VUYYURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DIST.
2. TERRITORY MANAGER RETAIL, M/S. BHARAT PETROLEUM
CORPORATION
LTD,
KATTUBADIPALEM
POST,
PINAPAKA
VILLAGE G KONDURU MANDAL, VIJAYAWADA
3. K NEERAJA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, PROP.BALAJI FILLING
STATION, DEALER OF BHARAT PETROLIURN CORPORATION
LTD. MAIN ROAD, VUYYURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DIST
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to set aside the order dated 28.4.2025 passed in
lA No. 1481/2022 in OS No. 148/2014 on the file of XI Additional District Judge, Gudivada, IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to order stay of all further proceedings in OS No. 148/2014
on the file of XI Additional District Judge, Gudivada pending disposal of the above CRP in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. YALLABANDI RAMATIRTHA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Aggrieved by the order of learned XI Additional District Judge, Gudivada, dated 28.04.2025, whereby the petition filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) to reject the plaint was dismissed, the petitioner has preferred the present civil revision petition.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The petitioner is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.148 of 2014 on the file of learned XI Additional District Judge, Gudivada. The suit was filed against him and two other defendants for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property after ejecting the defendants therefrom by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a Trust Association of the Convention of the Baptist Church of the Northern Circars registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. While the suit is pending trial, defendants 1 and 3 together filed a petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and the 1st defendant is also Secretary of the said Society and as the dispute relates to affairs of the Society, that a civil suit is not maintainable and the plaintiff has to file Original Petition (OP) under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001. Therefore, on the ground that the civil suit is not maintainable, the petition was filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint.
4. The trial Court dismissed the said petition by the impugned order on the ground that as per the averments of the plaint itself that the 1st defendant is not a member of the Society and that the 1st defendant executed a registered lease deed in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of the 2nd defendant and as it is clear from the reading of the plaint averments itself that it is the specific contention of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant is not a member of the Soecity, that the dispute involved in the suit is not relating to the dispute between the Society and its members and as such, the dispute will not fall within the ambit of Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001.
5. This Court finds no legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding of the trial Court. In the written statement filed by the 1st defendant at para No.24, it is stated that the plaintiff has nothing to do with the plaintiff Society as his tenure is kept in abeyance in the year 2008 itself. Further, as per the plaint averments, as rightly observed by the trial Court, the 1st defendant is not a member of the Society. So, it is a disputed question of fact whether both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are the members of the Society or not, as per the pleadings both in the plaint and also in the written statement. So, it cannot be said at this stage that it is purely a dispute between the members of the Society to hold that Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 is to be invoked for adjudication of the said dispute. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition and refused to reject the plaint.
6. As it is the disputed question of fact, it has to be adjudicated and decided only in the final adjudication of the suit after trial is concluded and after both the parties adduce their evidence in support of their respective contentions. Ultimately if it is found that both the parties are members of the Society and the dispute pertains to the affairs of the Society, then the trial Court can take a call on the said contention and give an appropriate finding to that effect, according to law. At this stage, the said disputed question of fact cannot be decided and the plaint cannot be rejected.
7. Therefore, this Court finds no valid legal ground warranting its interference in the present revision petition. The impugned order of the trial Court is perfectly sustainable under law and it is not liable to be set aside.
8. Resultantly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. However, the said question raised by the 1st defendant / revision petitioner is left open to be raised in the suit which is to be decided by the trial Court in the final adjudication of the lis. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J. Date: 19.12.2025 ARR
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1575/2025
Date: 19.12.2025
ARR