THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 3237 of 2007 Date of order: 10.12.2010 Between: Obulam Hussain Reddy @ Annaiah …Petitioner and Buggala Rameshwara Swamy temple, Kanala village ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 3237 of 2007 ORDER: Plaintiff is the revision petitioner who has filed a suit for declaration of title to suit schedule property and consequential injunction. The said suit filed against the respondent-temple was objected to by the respondent on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of civil court in terms of Section 151 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”). The said contention was accepted by the trial court and the plaint was rejected under Order 7, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. Questioning the said order, a civil miscellaneous appeal was filed by the plaintiff before the III-Addl. District Judge, who has confirmed the order of the trial court. Questioning the aforesaid orders, this revision is preferred. Heard both learned counsel. It is rightly contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that Section 151 of the Act is only intended to bar such legal proceedings or suit for which machineries are provided under the Act. The suit being one for declaration of title only, the civil court is competent to adjudicate the said suit and the Deputy Commissioner or any authority under the Act lacks competence to adjudicate upon such a suit. (See Executive Officer, Sri Bramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple, Beeranguda, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District Vs. Sai Krupa Homes, Karimnagar and others [1]). The rejection of the suit based upon Section 151 of the Act is, therefore, clearly erroneous. The impugned orders ex-facie suffer from error as aforesaid and liable to be set aside. It is, however, seen that the rejection of the plaint amounts to a decree under Section 2 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code and a first appeal ought to have been filed by the plaintiff, instead he filed a civil miscellaneous appeal probably on the basis of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in B. Nookaraju Vs. M.S.N. Charities [2] which was holding the field till it was overruled by a Full Bench of this Court in Gurram Seetharam Reddy Vs. Smt. Gunti Yashoda and another [3]. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed and entertained, consequently this revision petition filed by the plaintiff against the judgment of the said Appellate Court was further entertained by this Court. In fact, in view of the legal position as declared by a Full Bench of this Court which overruled the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, referred to above, the first appeal and thereafter second appeal would lie against the rejection of the plaint. However, since civil miscellaneous appeal and revision petition were entertained by the respective courts and no objection was raised by the respondent-temple and keeping in view the fact that the revision petition is pending before this Court for the last three years and the plaintiff’s suit is yet to be entertained by the trial Court, I am constrained to overlook the said error on the part of the lower appellate court in entertaining the civil miscellaneous appeal. The revision petition is allowed, the impugned orders are set aside, the trial Court shall proceed with the suit and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The respondent-temple is free to raise all objections permissible under the law and contest the suit. No costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 10.12.2010 KR [1] 2010 (6) ALD 207 [2] 1994 (2) ALT 125 (DB) [3] 2004 (6) ALT 111 = 2004 (6) ALD 175 = AIR 2005 AP 95 (FB)