Interim Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS SCJ No.1888/2023 Page No.1 of 5
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-01, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY SH. SAHIL KHURMI
CS SCJ 1888/23
MOTI LAL & ORS
Vs.
RAM VILAS & ORS
ORDER
15.02.2025
1. Vide this Order, I shall dispose off an application u/O VII
Rule 11 CPC filed by defendants No.1 to defendant No.4.
2. It is stated in the application that interalia the present suit is
not maintainable as the plaintiffs have not given any complaint
formally to the election commission and the plaintiffs accepted the
results of election process and signed on the results in the presence
of all the members or the RWA. It is further stated that as per
Societies Registration Act 1860 appropriate remedy lies before the
competent authority under the Societies Registration Act 1860 and
this Court does not have the jurisdiction to try the present suit.
2.1 It is further stated that the plaintiff has filed the present suit
for recovery of Rs.2,43,200/- couched in the form of injunction
which is barred u/s 41(h) of Specific Relief Act.
2.2 It is further stated that plaintiffs have no locus standi to file
the present suit.
-- 1 of 5 --
CS SCJ No.1888/2023 Page No.2 of 5
3. Per contra, the application is opposed by the Counsel for the
plaintiffs on the ground that there is no merit in the present
application and same deserves to be dismissed.
4. I have heard both the counsels for a considerable point of
time and perused the court record meticulously.
5. It is settled law that while deciding the application u/O VII
Rule 11 CPC only the contents of the plaint and its accompanying
documents are to be considered and the written statement and its
documents are not to be considered.
6. Regarding the jurisdiction of this court, Ld. Counsel for
plaintiff has relied upon Section 13 of Societies Registration Act
which provides that:-
“in the event of any dispute arising among the
said governing body or the members of the
society, the adjustment of its affairs shall be
referred to the principal Court of original civil
jurisdiction of the district in which the chief
building of the society is situate; and the Court
shall make such order in the matter as it shall
deem requisite.”
7. The said provisions provide for dissolution of societies and
adjustment of its affairs and further that in the event of any dispute
the civil court shall have the jurisdiction regarding adjustment of
affairs.
8. Section 9 of CPC confers power to the civil courts to try all
the suits excepts those which are either explicitly or impliedly
barred.
-- 2 of 5 --
CS SCJ No.1888/2023 Page No.3 of 5
9. In the constitution Bench judgment of Dhula Bhai and Ors
vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another
MANU/SC/0157/1968, it was held that:
“Ouster of the jurisdiction of a Civil Court is not
to be lightly inferred and can only be established
if there is an express provision of law or is
clearly implied.”
10. The aforesaid position of law has been quoted by the
constitution bench judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Mafatlal Industries Ltd vs. Union of India reported in
MANU/SC/1203/1997 where reference has been made to the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court of India in Devender Singh
and Ors vs. State of Haryana and Ors reported in
MANU/2897/2006 where reference has been made out for Dhula
Bhai (supra) where Privy Counsel in the case of Secretary of
State v/s Marc and Co. reported as MANU/PR/0022/1940 where
the Previ Counsel in the case of Secretary of State vs Maize & Co.
reported in MANU/PF/0022/1940 held as follows:-
“It is settled law that the exclusion of the
jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is not to be
readily inferred, but that such exclusion must
either be explicitly expressed or clearly implied.
It is also well settled that even if jurisdiction is
so excluded, the Civil Courts have jurisdiction
to examine into cases where the provisions of
the Act have not been complied with or the
statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity
-- 3 of 5 --
CS SCJ No.1888/2023 Page No.4 of 5
with the fundamental principles of judicial
procedure.”
11. The Registrar of Societies Act 1860 nowhere provides for
bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts and moreover no competent
authority has been established under the aforesaid Act.
12. Accordingly, this Court has the subject-matter jurisdiction to
try the present suit.
13. Regarding the contention of the applicant that plaintiff has
not made any complaint to the election commission, it is stated on
behalf of the plaintiff that that at the time of counting and before
declaration of the result, the anomalies were brought to the notice
of the defendants and were requested to declare the election as null
and void but the defendant were adamant to declare the result as
per their own wish and even invalid ballot papers were also taken
into account as valid. Thus, the plaintiff has raised triable issue
which needs to be proved after granting opportunity to both the
parties to lead evidence.
14. Regarding the contentions of the applicant that the prayer
clause (c) of the present suit seeking mandatory injunction to direct
the defendants to deposit total amounts received from the
membership fees i.e. Rs.2,43,200/- which is lying with defendant
no.1 in the bank account of Harit Vihar, Resident Welfare
Association in the garb of recovery in order to evade the Court
fees, it is stated on behalf of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is not
seeking to recover the same from the defendants in its personal
-- 4 of 5 --
CS SCJ No.1888/2023 Page No.5 of 5
capacity rather seeking direction to defendant No.1 to deposit the
said amount in the bank account of RWA.
15. In the considered view of this Court, the plaintiff is not
seeking recovery of sum of Rs.2,43,200/- in its personal capacity
rather seeking directions to deposit the said amount in the bank
account of Harit Vihar RWA and thus the present suit in its present
form is maintainable.
16. In the considered view of this Court, the present matter is at
nascent stage as issues have not been framed and the present suit
cannot be dismissed at the threshold without granting opportunity
to the parties to lead their evidence. Accordingly, the present
application u/O VII Rule 11 CPC stands dismissed.
Announced in the open
Court today on 15.02.2025.
(SAHIL KHURMI)
Civil Judge-1, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
-- 5 of 5 --