IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND (22ND) DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.1424 of 2006 Between: Hindi Prachar Sabha, Hyderabad & others … Petitioners And: Ashok Guruji & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.1424 of 2006 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 01.02.2006 in OP No.900 of 2004 on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the respondents herein under section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act 2001 (for short ‘the Act’), was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. According to the respondents herein, they are the members of the first petitioner-society of which 2nd respondent is the Vice-President. The 2nd petitioner-Trust was created for preservation of the immoveable properties belong to the society under Trust deed dated 23.12.1965. The petitioners, 3, 4, 6 and 7 were the trustees of the Trust, 8th petitioner was the President of the society. The respondents herein alleged that the petitioners- trustees are mis-managing the affairs of the society and are not maintaining the accounts for the last three accounting years. Hence, they filed petition seeking protection of the accounts and appointment of independent Chartered Accountant to audit the accounts, for declaration of appointment of 5th petitioner herein as trustee, is illegal and for mandatory injunction to hold election to the unfilled posts of the trust. The petitioner herein filed counter, inter-alia contending that the petition is not maintainable under Section 23 of the Act and the 2nd petitioner-trust, being a public trust, petition has to be filed under Section 92 of CPC. 4. The trial Court framed the following points for consideration. i) Whether this petition is maintainable under Section 23 of the Societies Registration act 2001? 2. Whether the first and second respondents are not maintaining the accounts properly and whether an independent chartered Accountant has to be appointed to audit the accounts of the second respondent and submit a report? 3. Whether the appointment of the fifth respondent as a Trustee on 04.01.2004 is illegal? 4. To what relief? 5. During enquiry, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. DWs.1 to 3 were marked and Exs.B.1 to B.19 were marked. 6. The trial Court on point No.1 held that the petition is not maintainable; on point No.2 the trial Court held that there was no irregularity in maintaining the accounts, but however, the respondents herein are at liberty to canvas the same if they choose to file petition under Section 92 CPC; on point No.3, the trial Court held that the nomination of the 5th petitioner is illegal and void. Ultimately on point No.4, the trial Court held that in view of the finding on point No.1, the petition was dismissed. 7. The respondents herein did not challenge the dismissal of the petition, but the petitioners, who are respondents in the OP, filed the present revision, assailing the finding on point No.3 on the ground that the trial Court having held that the petition is not maintainable, ought not to have recorded any finding. 8. The finding recorded by the trial Court on point No.1 to the effect that the petition is not maintainable and consequent dismissal of the petition on the said ground has become final. As rightly held by the trial Court, the trust is an independent body, having its own managing committee comprising Managing Trustee and other trustees and the enquiry contemplated under Section 23 of the Act is not the same as enquiry under Section 92 of CPC. When it came to point No.3 as to whether the appointment of 5th petitioner herein as trustee on 04.01.2004 is illegal, the trial Court went on discussing on merits of the matter and recorded a finding that the nomination of 5th petitioner herein is illegal and void. When once it is held that the petition under Section 23 of the Act is not maintainable and the proper course of action would be only under Section 92 of CPC, the trial Court ought not to have embarked upon the enquiry in to the illegality or otherwise of the appointment of the 5th petitioner as a trustee, as the same does not arise for consideration in a petition filed under Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act. The finding recorded on point No.3 contradicts with the finding on point No.1 that the petition is not maintainable. The trial court ought not to have adjudicated upon the dispute regarding illegality or otherwise of the election of 5th petitioner in view of the specific finding recorded on point No.1 to the effect that the petition itself is not maintainable. 9. In the circumstances, the said finding recorded on point No.3 is held to be unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. 10. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 22.02.2011 bss