THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH C.R.P. NO. 739 of 2010 DT.30.12.2011 Between: Mahankalamma Talli Ammavari Temple and others … Petitioner And Kolapalli Venkata Siva Prasad and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner:Sri VVLN Sharma Counsel for respondents: Sri M Subrahmanyam The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH C.R.P. NO. 739 of 2010 ORDER :- This revision is filed questioning the orders dated 15.2.2009 in I.A. No. 934 of 2009 in O.S. No. 483 of 2008 by the First Additional Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam in allowing the application filed under Section 9 and 151 of CPC to reject the suit. The revision petitioners are plaintiffs. They filed a suit to declare that S ri Mahankalamma Talli Temple, Mukkollu to be managed only by the founder paternal family members of Kotamma i.e., by Sammeta family members and consequently to grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their followers, men and others from ever interfering with the management by the paternal family members of Kotamma in managing the plaintiff temple. In the affidavit filed along with this revision, it is stated that earlier the plaintiffs filed an application in I.A No. 1047 of 2008 and initially ex-parte injunction was granted and the same has been later made absolute, against which order an appeal in C.M.A. No. 7 of 2009 was filed by the respondents and the said appeal was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. Thereafter, the defendants filed an application in I.A No. 1130 of 2008 under Section 9 and Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) of CPC and Section 151 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short the Act, 1987). The Court below after considering the judgments of this Court in Teki Venkata Ratnam and Ors Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada [1] and the Secretary, Department of Finance (Revenue & Insurance )Vs. Murali Tobacco Co, Guntur[2] dismissed the said application by order dated 24.2.2009, observing that it is not justifiable to reject the plaint at the threshold and whether the plaintiff is founder family member as claimed by him can only be decided after the trial of the suit. The matter was carried in appeal in CMA No. 8 of 2009 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge (FTC), Krishna at Machilipatnam and the lower Appellate Court, on reappreciation of the matter, framed the following points for its consideration; 1) Whether the appeal is maintainable ? 2) Whether the suit before the trial Court is sustainable ? The lower Appellate Court, on point no.2, after referring to the judgments of this Court in the Secretary, Department of Finance (cited supra), Bandla Raghavendra Rao Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Vijayawada, Krishna District and others [3] and K.L.V.Prasada Rao and others Vs. K.Venkateswara Goud and other[4] held that the civil suit is not maintainable since the subject matter falls within the ambit of Act 30 of 1987. Further, the lower Appellate Court, answered the point no.1 against the appellants holding that appeal is not provided by section 104 of CPC and Order 43 of CPC to question the order made in an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC. While holding so, dismissed the appeal. Pursuant to the findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court on point no.2, the defendants filed an application in I.A. No. 934 of 2009 under Section 9 and Section 151 of CPC to reject the suit. The Court below, by order under revision dated 15.2.2010 allowed the said application, holding that the said Court has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute pending before it in terms of Section 151 of Act 30 of 1987. Hence, the present revision. The learned counsel for petitioners mainly contended that the bar to entertain the suit only applies to registered religious institutions and it does not apply to un-registered institutions. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record. For the sake of convenience, Section 1 subsection 3(a) and 151 of Act 30 of 1987 is extracted as under; Section 1 (3) (a):-- “It applies to all public charitable institutions and endowments, whether registered or not, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, other than Wakfs governed by the provisions of the Wakfs Act, 1954.” Section 151:-- “No suit or legal proceeding in respect of administration or management of an institution or endowment or any other matters of dispute for determining or deciding for which provision is made in this Act shall be instituted in any Court of low except under and in conformity with the provisions of this Act.” In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Court below has rightly allowed the application, particularly in view of the specific bar under Section 151 of the Act 30 of 1987 which applies to un-registered religious institutions also. Thus, the only course open for the petitioners is to approach the concerned authority under the Act for redressal of its grievance. There are no merits in the revision and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. _____________ V ESWARAIAH,J DATE:30.12.2011 tvk THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH C.R.P. NO. 739 of 2010 DT.30.12.2011 [1] 1996 (4) ALD 643 DB [2] 1999 (5) ALT 225 [3] 2008 (1) ALD 51 [4] 2008 (2) ALT 455