ORDER
P.S. Narayana, J.
1. Hyderabad Cricket Association represented by its Honourary Secretary, the Executive Committee represented by its President-cum-Chairman, Hyderabad Cricket Association, had preferred Civil Revision Petition Nos. 2198 of 2002 and 2199 of 2002 against the common order dated 1-5-2002, made in O.P. Nos. 549 of 1998 and 550 of 1998 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The respondent in C.R.P. No. 2198 of 2002 is the Gunrock Cricket Club and the respondent in C.R.P. No. 2199 of 2002 is the Picket Cricket Club. At the outset, it is brought to my notice that these two clubs, Gunrock Cricket Club and Picket Cricket Club, arrayed as respondents in these civil revision petitions, are un-registered clubs. O.P. Nos. 549 of 1998 and 550 of 1998 were filed by Gunrock Cricket Club and Picket Cricket Club respectively, as against the respondents, the revision petitioners herein, under Section 11 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli filed the O.Ps. praying for a declaration that the acts and actions of the respondents in the said Original Petitions and allowing the unauthorized persons to appear on their behalf as illegal, mala fide and arbitrary and also for perpetual injunction restraining them from receiving annual subscription fee from unauthorized persons. One Sri M.A. Muneem Siddiqui represented these clubs and this itself is a disputed fact. The main grievance ventilated by the respondents in these civil revision petitions as petitioners in the aforesaid O.Ps. is that the present revision petitioners are not following Rule 3(i) and (ii) of Chapter III of Memorandum and Rules and Regulations and they are not allowing the authorized representatives of these clubs in the general body meeting and they are changing the nomination as they like. No doubt, certain other allegations had been made in this regard. The stand taken by the revision petitioners as respondents in the said O.Ps. is one of total denial and the very locus standi of this M.A. Muneem Siddiqui was raised as a ground of attack. After settlement of issues, P.Ws.1 to 3 and R.W.1 were examined. Exs.A-1 to 23 and Exs.C-1 to C-53 were marked. The learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad had arrived at a conclusion that the relief prayed for by the petitioners in the respective O.Ps cannot be granted and having disallowed the said relief, allowed the O.Ps partly directing the revision petitioners-respondents in the O.Ps to follow Rule 3(i) and (ii) of Chapter III, of the Memorandum and certain other consequential directions. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioners had filed the present civil revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Sri K. Suryanarayana, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners at the outset had submitted that Gunrock Cricket Club and Picket Cricket Club are un-registered clubs and hence they cannot maintain these O.Ps at all under Section 11 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 1 of 1350 Fasli' for the purpose of convenience). The Counsel placed strong reliance on Hyderabad Cricket Association v. Cambridge Cricket Club, : 2002(5)ALD818 . The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience) and the said provision is substantially same when compared to Section 11 of the Act 1 of 1350 Fasli though it is not in para materia. The learned Counsel further contended that the learned Judge having arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners in the respective O.Ps, respondents in the present civil revision petitions, are not entitled to the relief prayed for, had definitely committed an error in further proceeding with the matter and issuing directions as specified in Paras 14 and 15 of the impugned order. The learned Counsel also submitted that in this view of the matter both on the question of law raised and also on facts the impugned order cannot be sustained.
3. On the contrary, the Counsel representing the respondents in the respective civil revision petitions had submitted that taking into consideration the over all facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, only a direction was given to follow its own Rules and hence, the revision petitioners cannot make any grievance in relation to such directions on the ground that it is beyond the powers of the learned Judge.
4. Heard both the Counsel.
5. The Counsel for the revision petitioners no doubt asserted that Gunrock Cricket Club and Picket Cricket Club are unregistered clubs and such societies cannot maintain the O.Ps praying for any relief whatsoever. Strong reliance was placed on Hyderabad Cricket Association v. Cambridge Cricket Club (supra), in which no doubt it was held that the petitions filed by unregistered clubs are not maintainable and on that ground the impugned orders were set aside.
6. In a case reported in Krovi Sivaji Rao v. Sri Santhana Bhagavatha Bhaktha Samajam, 1981 (2) An.WR 103, while dealing with the scope and ambit of Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, this Court held that it is only an enabling provision for registration, registration is not compulsory and hence, a suit by an un-registered Society for an injunction restraining the defendant, an un-registered society, using the name of the plaintiff is maintainable.
7. In a case reported in Hyderabad Cricket Association v. Cambridge Cricket Club (supra), the learned Judge while dealing with a batch of civil revision petitions arising out of interlocutory orders made in OPs filed under Section 23 of the Act, has placed reliance on Satyavart Sidhantalankar v. Arya Samaj, AIR 1946 Bombay 516, Yusuf Beg v. The Board of Foreign Missions the Presbyterian Church of New York in America Through the Revd.W.F. Johnson, Principal Officer, (1894) ILR Vol. XVI All 420 and The N.W.P. Club Through G.B. Goyder, Honorary Secretary v. Saduollah, (1898) ILR Vol. XX All 497, and had arrived at a conclusion that the view expressed in K. Sivaji Rao v. Santhana Bhagavatha Bhaktha Samajam's case, (supra), cannot be followed in the light of the clear law laid down in this regard in the decisions aforesaid. Sri Suryanarayana, Counsel for the petitioner, in all fairness submitted that except the assertion made at the revisional stage there is no factual foundation in this regard and no plea was raised and no issue was settled and no finding was recorded relating to the maintainability and non-maintainability of O.Ps on the ground of non-registration of the clubs. It is needless to say that unless a specific plea is raised in this regard and the parties are put on notice on such a plea by surprise such a plea cannot be taken at the revisional stage and in the absence of such a plea or an issue or recording of finding in relation thereto, I am not inclined to permit the revision petitioners to raise such ground at the revisional stage for the first time so as to throw out the OPs on the ground of maintainability.
8. The next question that falls for consideration is that while the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad having refused to grant the main relief prayed for, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, is justified in issuing the directions specified in paras 14 and 15 of the impugned order. O.P. Nos. 549 of 1998 and 550 of 1998 were filed on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad under Section 11 of Act 1 of 1350Fasli and Section 11 dealing with the dispute regarding management is specified as hereunder:
'77. Dispute regarding management :--In the event of any dispute arising among the Managing Committee or the members of the Society, in respect of any management or dissolution of the Society, any member of the Society may file an application in the District Court concerned, and the said Court shall after necessary inquiry pass such order as it shall deem fit.'
The corresponding provision, which is just akin though not exactly the same under Section 23 of the Act dealing with the dispute regarding management reads as hereunder:
'Section 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 (Central Act 26 of 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.'
Section 32 of the Act deals with the Repeals and Savings and the provision reads as hereunder:
'32. Repeals and Savings :--(1) The Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Central Act 21 of 1860) in its application to the Andhra Area of the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350F (Act 1 of 1350F) are hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the said Acts (including any order, rule, form regulation, certificate or bye-laws) in the exercise of any power conferred by or under the said Acts shall be deemed to have been done or taken in the exercise of the powers conferred by or under this Act as if this Act was in force on the date on which such a thing was done or action taken.'
9. In the light of the clear language in Sub-section (2) it is clear that notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the aforesaid Acts specified in Sub-section (1) including any order, rule, form regulation, certificate or bye-laws in the exercise of any power conferred by or under the said acts shall be deemed to have been done or taken in the exercise of the powers conferred by or under this Act as if this Act was in force on the date on which such a thing was done or action taken.
10. P.W.1, M.A. Muneem Siddiqui, deposed that he is the secretary of both the clubs, which had moved the O.Ps. PW1 also deposed that Seetharam has no right or ownership over the clubs and in fact he never attended the annual general meeting of H.C.A. representing the said clubs. PW1 also deposed that the general body meeting of these clubs had been convened on 14-4-1998 and he was appointed as Secretary of Gunrock Cricket Club as per the resolution of the meeting, marked as Exs.A-1 and A-16. The learned Judge while commenting on Exs.A-1 and A-16 and recording a finding that these are not genuine documents had observed:
'12:06: More interestingly the contents of Exs.A-1 and A-16 are not mentioned in the petition. There is no pleading on behalf of the petitioner that Muneem Siddiqui was unanimously elected as Secretary of the clubs in the Extraordinary General Body Meeting on 14-4-1998. If it is a fact that Muneem Siddiqui is elected as Secretary of the clubs in the month of April, 1998 i.e., on 14-4-1998 the same fact would have been mentioned in the contents of the original petition in this case which was filed on May 1998 i.e., a month later. The copy of the resolution is not filed as a suit document and the contents of the resolutions are not mentioned in the petition. The counter in this case was filed on 5-8-1998- When the respondents have taken a specific plea that Muneem Siddiqui is not the Secretary of the petitioners club, the resolutions under Exs.A-1 and A-16 have seen the light of the day. Exs.A-1 and A-16 are vital documents and the petitioner is heavily relying on them to prove that he is the Secretary of the two clubs. But they are not filed along with the petition and there is no mention about these documents in the petition. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that Exs.A-1 and A-16 are not genuine documents and they were pressed into service by the petitioner only to meet the challenge of the respondents.'
11. The learned Judge had also drawn adverse inference in regard to Exs.A-2 and A-17 also. The learned Judge further doubted the genuineness of the other documents relied upon in this regard and recorded as a specific finding that this Muneem Siddiqui is not the Secretary of the respective clubs. Having observed so, placing reliance on two decisions i.e., G.V. Ranga Rao v. A.P. State Electricity Board Engineers Association, : 2001(5)ALD705 (FB) and T. Tirumala Reddy v. APSEB Engineers Association, : 1998(4)ALD372 (DB), the learned Judge had arrived at a conclusion that the main relief prayed for in the respective O.Ps cannot be granted, but ultimately had partly allowed the O.Ps issuing certain directions.
12. In T. Tirumala Reddy v. APSEB Engineers Association, (supra), it was held as follows:
'It must be-noted that the Principal District Court (in this case Chief Judge, City Civil Court) is exercising a jurisdiction conferred by a special Act and it is not the ordinary jurisdiction under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. The provisions of Civil Procedure Code including Order XXXIX, Rule I cannot be made ipso facto applicable to the proceedings before the said Court under a special Act merely because the Court which has seisin of the matter is the Principal Civil Court of the District.
It is well settled that the Court or a Tribunal, which has jurisdiction to try or enquire into a matter, has all incidental and ancillary powers so as to effectuate the substantive powers conferred on the Court or Tribunal. The power to enquire into and dispose of the application filed under Section 11 of the Act carries with it, in our view, the incidental or ancillary power to grant an interim order to prevent miscarriage of justice. Such power is, an adjunct to the power of adjudication conferred on the Court under Section 11 of the Act. That being the legal position, the interlocutory application filed by the respondent cannot be viewed as an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 C.P.C. though a wrong provision was cited.
When once it is held that the application is not traceable to Order XXXIX, Rule 1 CPC and the order passed thereon is not really an order falling under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 CPC. Order XL III, Rule 1 C.P.C. cannot be invoked for preferring an appeal. Court upholds the preliminary objection and dismisses the civil miscellaneous appeal as not maintainable.'
13. In G.V. Ranga Rao v. A.P. State Electricity Board Engineers Association (supra) Full Bench of this Court while dealing with an order made under Section 11 of Act 1 of 1350F and the maintainability of the appeal had observed:
'A.P. (T.A.) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350F was enacted to make law for determining the legal status of societies established or which may be established in future in Telangana Area of the State of Andhra Pradesh for the diffusion of knowledge and arts or for the fulfillment of public or religious purposes.
No appeal is provided in terms of the provisions of the said Act either from an interlocutory order or from a final order passed in the proceedings.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has not been specifically made applicable in relation to a proceeding under the said Act.
Both Sections 4 and 141 deal with procedure and procedure alone. They do not confer any substantive right not expressly given elsewhere by the Code. It is now well settled that the Code of Civil Procedure provides both for substantive as well as procedural provisions. A right of appeal, which is a substantive provision, can neither be claimed either under Section 4 or under Section 141 of the Code.
Section 104 of the Code states that an appeal shall lie only from the orders specified therein and save otherwise expressly provided in the body of the Code or by any law for the time being in force and from no other orders.
The District Court while adjudicating on an application under Section 11 of the said Act can pass an interim order. But the same does not mean that it has power to grant injunction in terms of Order 39, Rule 1 or Order 39, Rule 2 of the Code.
The Courts have power to grant injunctions in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure in a case where Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 have no application. In terms or Order 43, Rule I of the Code, an appeal shall He only from an order passed under Rules 1, 2, 2-A, 4 or 10 of Order 39. No appeal lies from an order passed under Section 151 of the Code granting or refusing to grant injunction.
Having regard to Section 104 of the Code, even no appeal would be maintainable from an order, which has not been passed inter alia under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 , Code of Civil Procedure.'
14. On a careful reading of the findings recorded by the learned Judge in the impugned order I am satisfied that the learned Judge definitely had gone far beyond the scope and ambit of the O.Ps and had granted the directions specified in Paras 14 and 15. It is pertinent to note that when the learned Chief Judge had doubted the locus standi of the very person who had approached the Court and also had recorded a finding that the reliefs prayed for in the main O.Ps cannot be granted, definitely the learned Judge had erred in granting such directions specified in Paras 14 and 15. Hence, though I am not inclined to express any opinion relating to the maintainability or non-maintainability of the O.Ps on the ground of non registration of these clubs for want of a plea on factual aspect. I am thoroughly satisfied that definitely the learned Chief Judge had committed an illegality in making such directions while refusing the principal reliefs in the O.Ps.
15. In view of the findings recorded above, the impugned orders, so far as they relate to the directions specified in Paras 14 and 15 of the order in O.P. Nos. 549 of 1998 and 550 of 1998 are hereby set aside. Accordingly, the civil revision petitions are hereby allowed. No order as to costs.