THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2793 OF 2011 Dated: 10.08.2011 Between: 1. Dayanand Agarwal and 2 others. … Petitioners And 1. Ramesh Agarwal and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2793 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 7.7.2011 in I.A.No.1114 of 2010 in O.P.No.122 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, R.R. District. The respondents 1 & 2 herein filed O.P.No.122 of 2010 under Section 23 of A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 (for short, ‘the Act’) seeking a declaration that their removal from the Executive Committee and General Membership of the Respondent No.8 society (petitioner No.3 herein) is illegal, null and void and for consequential reliefs. The Revision petitioners, who are arrayed as respondents 1, 4 & 8 in O.P.No.122 of 2010, filed I.A.No.1114 of 2010 under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC with a prayer to reject O.P.No.122 of 2010 contending that the petitioners who were already removed from the membership of the society cannot invoke Section 23 of the Act. The said application was opposed by the respondents and the Court below, after hearing both the parties, by order dated 7.7.2011 dismissed I.A.No.1114 of 2010. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. Section 23 of A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 reads as under: “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.” As could be seen, Section 23 entitles any member of the society to file an application in the District Court 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. Under Section 2(h) of the Act the expression ‘member’ has been defined as under: “2(h). ‘Member’ means a person, individual or body corporate, who/which, having been admitted to membership in any society has not registered or ceased to be a member, or been removed from membership, in accordance with the bye-laws of that society.” A reading of the above provision shows that only those persons who are removed from the membership in accordance with the bye- laws are not brought within the meaning of “member”. Thus on a combined reading of Section 23 and Section 2 (h) it is clear that a member of the society can question his removal by invoking the remedy under Section 23 of the Act on the ground that his removal was not in accordance with the bye-laws of the society. In the instant case, the specific case of the petitioners in O.P.No.122 of 2010 is that their removal from the membership of the society was contrary to bye-laws and illegal. Hence as rightly held by the Court below the petition under Section 23 of the Act is maintainable and the Court below cannot be said to have committed any error in dismissing the petition filed under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of C.P.C. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 10.08.2011 GBS