THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.3991 OF 2010 DATE:21.12.2010 BETWEEN: Odamodula Appanna Abednigo and others .. Petitioners And Jalaripeta Church and Christ Society .. Respondent THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.3991 OF 2010 ORDERS: This civil revision petition is filed challenging the decree and judgment dated 07.07.2010 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in C.M.A.No.25 of 2009 reversing the order dated 24.02.2009 passed by the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam in I.A.No.591 of 2009 in O.S.No.1345 of 2008. I have heard Smt. Anjana Devi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G.V.S.Kishore Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The short facts leading to filing of the present revision petition are as follows: The first petitioner constructed a thatched house in his own site for the purpose of his residence as well as for offering prayers by the Christian congregation. The said thatched house was burnt after some time and he constructed a tiled house in the same place at the instance of the locality people and continued to offer prayers in the said house. After some time, the municipal corporation, Visakhapatnam took away the said house along with the site of the first petitioner for the purpose of road widening and an alternative site was given to the first petitioner. By then, the first petitioner was the treasurer of the society and the site was allotted in the name of the society. The society in whose favour the alternative site was granted by the Visakhapatnam Municipality was formed on 28.01.1992 and the same was registered as Jalaripet Church of Christian Society vide registered No.65.92 under the Societies Registration Act. All these facts are not in dispute. Some differences arose between the members and office bearers of the society. It is the version of the respondent that the respondent society was formed under the name and style of ‘Jalaripeta Church of Christ Society’ in the year 2004 and it was also registered under the Societies Registration Act with registered No.567/2004. The respondent society filed O.S.No.1345 of 2008 against the revision petitioners claiming exclusive right in the plaint schedule property and also filed I.A.No.591 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam seeking temporary injunction and obtained ex parte orders of injunction against the revision petitioners. The learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Viakhapatnam after making an enquiry into the said interlocutory application, ultimately dismissed the petition mainly considering the fact that the persons belonging to both groups have been offering prayers in the church in question and if the injunction is granted, it will cause irreparable loss to the group of the individuals of the revision petitioners, whereas no loss would be caused to the respondent society if the injunction is not granted. In C.M.A.No.25 of 2009 filed by the respondent, the learned I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam reversed the finding of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam and granted temporary injunction in favour of the respondent and against the revision petitioners pending disposal of the suit. The said order is assailed in the present revision petition. The contention of the revision petitioners is that the society with Registration No.65 of 1992 was in existence on the date of the alleged formation of respondent society No.567/2004. The earlier society having not been dissolved at any point of time, the new society cannot claim any right over the property in dispute since it was vested in the society No.65 of 1992 and the said society continues to possess all the rights in relation to the schedule mentioned property which is a church. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondent is that the revision petitioners have not adduced any evidence showing that the society has been ever renewed since it is formed in the year 1992 and therefore, it shall be considered as non existent. However, the fact remains that no material has been placed to show that the society No.65 of 1992 was dissolved. It is also not in dispute that the schedule mentioned property was assigned by the Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam in favour of the society No.65 of 1992. There is no documentary evidence adduced by the respondent to show that at any point of time, the society No.65 of 1992 has been divested of the property in question. Merely because, T.Anandpaul, who claims to be the Secretary of the society No.567 of 2004 claims that the earlier society was dissolved and a new society has been formed with new office bearers, it has no basis since it is not supported by any documentary evidence. The property which was already vested in the society No.65 of 1992 cannot be said to be automatically divested on the formation of new society in the absence of any evidence to show that the new society was formed in the place of the old society and the property was transferred to the new society. Ex.P.4 is said to be Xerox copy of the public notice dated 03.08.2004 filed by the respondent which contains intimation to the public about the dissolution of society bearing No.65 of 1992. There is no other documentary evidence adduced to show that in fact, the earlier society was dissolved. Ex.P.4 being a Xerox copy cannot be read in evidence and it was also not proved by the respondent that it has been actually issued by the respondent. No proceedings relating to the dissolution of the earlier society were filed by the respondent. Ex.R.7 is a crucial document filed by the revision petitioners, which is a letter dated 20.11.2008 addressed by the registrar of societies to Mr P.Anand Paul, the alleged Secretary of the new society calling information from him in respect of the society bearing No.65 of 1992. Therefore, as rightly held by the learned Junior Civil Judge, it is prima facie evidence in proof of the fact that the society bearing registration No.65 of 1992 was in existence as on the date of Ex.R.7. The grievance of the revision petitioner is that under the guise of the orders of temporary injunction passed by the I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in C.M.A.No.25 of 2009 the respondent and his group of people have been causing obstruction to the revision petitioners and their group of people who offer prayers in the church in question. Admittedly, as on the date of filing of the suit persons belonging to both groups were offering prayers in the church as per the agreement arrived at between them and the prayers were being offered at different timings. The view taken by the learned Junior Civil Judge that the balance of convenience is in favour of the revision petitioners and they would suffer irreparable loss if the injunction is granted is based on reasoning and the facts situation emerging out of the pleadings and documentary evidence adduced by both parties. Whereas, the learned I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam reversed the said finding without any basis and the reasons assigned by the learned I Additional District Judge to set aside the finding of the Junior Civil Judge are without any basis and not in accordance with the pleadings and documentary evidence on record. The judgment passed by the learned I Additional District Judge is wholly erroneous and illegal and is liable to be set aside in this revision. Consequently, the decree and judgment, dated 07.07.2010 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in C.M.A.No.25 of 2009 is hereby set aside confirming the order dated 24.02.2009 passed by the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam in I.A.No.591 of 2009 in O.S.No.1345 of 2008. The temporary injunction granted against the revision petitioners is vacated. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. ________________ Date:21.12.2010 R. KANTHA RAO, J kvrm THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.3991 OF 2010 DATED:21.12.2010