IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1858 OF 2009 Between: Sri Balaji Ramaswamy Muth of Changudi @ Changudi .....PETITIONER AND Bhima Pandi and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1858 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed challenging the maintainability of A.T.C.No.1 of 2009 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge - cum - Special Officer under Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956, Pathapatnam. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the case in view of the bar under Section 151 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, “the Act”), which reads as follows: “No suit or other 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 Law except under and in conformity with the provisions of this Act.” 4. It is not in dispute before this Court that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”) shall apply to the Endowments Tribunal constituted under the Act. But, under Section 87 (1) (c) of the Act, any dispute with regard to the endowment property, whether it is a religious endowment or a charitable endowment, it has to be decided by the Endowments Tribunal constituted under the said Act. The petitioner can raise a preliminary objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court, in view of Order XIV Rule 2 Sub-rule 2 C.P.C., which reads thus: “(2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to – (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision of that issue.” Therefore, in view of the above provision, when the Court lacks inherent jurisdiction or a bar to the suit is created by any law for the time being in force, that has to be determined as preliminary issue. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal raising the objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court below. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J September 30, 2010 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1858 OF 2009 September 30, 2010