District Sikar Rajasthan v. Arawali Shiksha Avem Anusandhan Sansthan, Jeenmata

Judgment

1. Arawali Shiksha Avem Anusandhan Sansthan, Jeenmata Road, Tambakupura, Tehsil Dantaramgarh District Sikar Through Secretary Savita Agarwal Aged 37 Years W/o Shri Suresh Kumar Agarwal, R/o Badri Vihar, Sheikhpura Mohalla, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar Rajasthan.

2. Savita Agarwal W/o Shri Suresh Kumar Agarwal, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Badri Vihar, Sheikhpura Mohalla, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar Rajasthan Secretary Arawali Shiksha Avem Anusandhan Sansthan, Jeenmata Road, Tambakupura, Tehsil Dantaramgarh District Sikar.

Suresh Kumar Agarwal S/o Shri Ramchandra Agarwal, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Badri Vihar, Sheikhpura Mohalla, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar Rajasthan President Arawali Shiksha Avem Anusandhan Sansthan, Jeenmata Road, Tambakupura, Tehsil Dantaramgarh District Sikar.

4. Smt. Banarasi Devi W/o Shri Bhagirath Singh D/o Shri Trilok Singh, R/o Miran, Tehsil Laxmangarh District Sikar Rajasthan Treasurer Arawali Shiksha Avem Anusandhan Sansthan, Jeenmata Road, Tambakupura, Tehsil Dantaramgarh District Sikar.

5. Gopal Singh S/o Shri Chitrmal, R/o Chandeli Ka Bas, Post Dholasari, Tehsil Dantaramgarh District Sikar Rajasthan.

6. Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Narayan Das, R/o Chandeli Ka Bas, Post Dholasari, Tehsil Dantaramgarh District Sikar Rajasthan.

7. Smt. Manju Devi W/o Shri Gopal Singh Gurjar D/o Shri Shrawan Kumar, R/o Near Khornda Ka Rasta, Kumawanton Ki Dhani, Jijot Nawan, Tehsil Nawan, District Nagaur At Present R/o Pandit Ki Kothi, Sanwli Road, Sikar Rajasthan. [2025:RJ-JP:1154] (2 of 6) [CR-159/2022]

8. Nirmal Kumar Saini S/o Shri Mohan Lal Saini, Near Lic Building, Sikar Tehsil And District Sikar Rajasthan.

9. Ramakant Sharma S/o Shri Sedu Ram Sharma, R/o Ward No.3, Nawladi, Tehsil Nawalgarh District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan.

10. Smt. Sunita Devi D/o Shri Bhinvaram, R/o Chandeli Ka Bas, Post Dholasari, Tehsil Dantaramgarh District Sikar Rajasthan.

11. Smt. Santosh Sharma S/o Shri Lalchand Sharma, R/o Ward No. 39, Nai Basti, Kailash Nagar Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar Rajasthan.

12. Mohit Pareek S/o Shri Shiv Bhagwan, R/o Pandit Ji Ki Kothi, Sanwli Road, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar Rajasthan.

13. Omprakash S/o Shri Nandaram, R/o Post Jijot Nagaur Rajasthan.

14. Nandlal S/o Shri Jadishprasad, R/o Post Mandavra, Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar Rajasthan.

15. Ramakant S/o Shri Rajkumar, Aged About 935 Years, R/o Behind Jain School, Darjion Ka Mohalla, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar Rajasthan.

16. Sanwarmal Dhabai S/o Shri Mangilal Dhabai, R/o Ward No. 22, Mahamandir Road, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar Rajasthan.

17. Ganpatram S/o Shri Arjun Ram, R/o Village And Post Banuda, Tehsil Dantaramgarh District Sikar.

18. Rahul Rulania S/o Shri Raghunath Rulania, R/o Chandeli, Post Dholasari, Tehsil Dantaramgarh District Sikar Rajasthan.

19. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector Sikar Rajasthan.

20. Registrar Societies Sikar, Subhash Chowk Inside Garh Parisar, Sikar Rajasthan Through Deputy Registrar.

21. Prakashchand s/o Shri Ramdev Singh r/o Village Payali Tehsil Didwana Dist. Nagaur through Secretary Arawali Education Evam Anusandhan Sansthan Tambakupura Jeenmata Road, Dist. Sikar (raj.)

22. Ramkaran Bhakar, son of Shri Ramchandra Singh R/o [2025:RJ-JP:1154] (3 of 6) [CR-159/2022] 364, Nemisagar Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Dist. Jaipur (raj.) through Chairman Arawali Education Evam Anusandhan Sansthan Tambakupura Jeenmata Road, Dist. Sikar (raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Verma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Agarwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 06/01/2025 Order

1. Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioner defendant No.1 aggrieved from dismissal of application under order VII rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC on 12.05.2022 in Civil Suit No. 121/2021 by learned Senior Civil Judge, Dantaramgarh, Sikar.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner defendant submitted that plaintiffs (respondent Nos. 1 to 4) have filed a civil suit for permanent injunction under Section 38 of Specific Relief Act before the trial court, which is barred by law. He further submitted that plaintiffs were never elected as an office bearer of registered body and in illegal manner they are running registered society therefore a criminal case was filed which is under investigation at P.S. Kotwali, Sikar. He further submitted that in a dispute relating to any society, the only option is to raise the issue before administrative body and in the instant case a civil suit was filed, without availing option before administrative body. He further submitted that Arawali Shiksha and Anusandhan Sanathan is a registered society with Registrar of Societies, Sikar and if there is [2025:RJ-JP:1154] (4 of 6) [CR-159/2022] any dispute then proceeding is required to be filed before the Registrar, Society and civil court is not a right forum.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4 (plaintiffs) have opposed the contention of petitioner and submitted that on the basis of nuisance caused by defendant Nos. 1 to 15, a suit for permanent injunction was filed and nowhere they have interacted upon jurisdiction of any other authority. He further submitted that a suit for permanent injunction can only be filed before the civil court and trial court has rightly dismissed the application under Order VII rule 11 CPC. He further submitted that suit filed by the plaintiffs is not barred by any law.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

5. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (plaintiffs) filed a civil suit under Section 38 of Specific Relief Act in an inter-se dispute regarding property of Arawali Shiksha and Anusandhan Sansthan. The plaintiffs have claimed themselves as office bearer of society. Nowhere it was mentioned that there was any office bearer from respondent Nos. 1 to 15. A perusal of plaint clearly reflect that on the basis of cause of action accrued on 18.10.2020, a civil suit was filed. The plaintiffs have mentioned that FIR No. 383/2020 was registered P.S. Ranoli, District – Sikar, whereas the petitioner has mentioned that criminal case No. 72/2021 was registered at P.S. Kotwali, Sikar.

6. Herein no specific provision of law was mentioned by the petitioner under which jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred, while filing application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, before the trial court. The petitioner has failed to show that under which provision [2025:RJ-JP:1154] (5 of 6) [CR-159/2022] of law, the suit is barred by law. There is no objection as regard to cause of action and limitation is concerned. The contention of petitioner is that the appeal is only maintainable before the administrative body but herein no order was challenged by the plaintiffs in their civil suit.

7. Learned trial court has considered the grounds raised by the parties in light of judgment as referred before the trial court and after considering the submissions, the application was dismissed with observation that civil court has a jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.

8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dahibhen Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali through LRs and Ors. 2020 SCC Online (SC) 562 while dealing with an appeal against an order allowing rejection of a suit at the threshold, had occasion to consider various precedents to discuss the intent behind Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that if no cause of action is disclosed in the plaint, or if the suit is barred by limitation, court would not permit protraction of the proceedings and it would be necessary to put an end to the shame litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted.

9. After placing reliance upon Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 SCC (SUPP) 315, Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined that the entire purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation, which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time and space of the Courts. The power on the Court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII, Rule 11 CPC are required to be strictly adhered to. [2025:RJ-JP:1154] (6 of 6) [CR-159/2022]

10. Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with such an application seeking rejection of a plaint clarified that while determining any application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court should restrict itself to the plaint and should not go into the detail facts as provided under the written statement or even in the application filed for rejection of plaint. While scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, the Court can read documents annexed and relied upon in the plaint.

11. Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC provides that a plaint should be rejected, if the suit is barred by any law. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ramisetty Venkatanna Vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb 2023 INSC 458 has observed that plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a)(d) of CPC, if it is vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by law.

12. After considering the copy of plaint, placed on record, I am of considered view that on the basis of application under Order VII rule 11 CPC, instant suit cannot be rejected therefore the trial court has rightly dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and revision petition sans merits.

13. Accordingly, revision petition is hereby dismissed. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. PREETI VALECHA /369 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J