Civil Suit No. 50 of 2021 · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- RAKESH THAPLIYAL
- Neutral citation
- 2026:UHC:3056
Outcome
Disposed of
the instant writ petition is disposed of finally
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. VII r. 11
- Constitution of India art. 227
- Registration Act, 1908
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Mr. Sahil Mullick, Learned Counsel for the respondent – plaintiff submits that in para no.1 of the plaint, a specific averment has been made that the plaintiff is the authorised representative of the society, who is authorised by resolution of the Society which is…
Judgment
Heard Mr. Dileep Chandra Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sahil Mullick, respondent. learned counsel
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner being defendant in Civil Suit No.50 of 2021 moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint which was rejected against which revision was too was also dismissed and now being aggrieved with both the orders, instant petition has been preferred under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a specific plea was taken in the application moved under Order VII Rule XI of CPC that the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff is barred by Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, since, the plaintiff of the suit in-question is not authorised to institute the suit.
Operative part
Mr. Sahil Mullick, Learned Counsel for the respondent – plaintiff submits that in para no.1 of the plaint, a specific averment has been made that the plaintiff is the authorised representative of the society, who is authorised by resolution of the Society which is purely a question of fact and is the subject matter of the trial and on this ground alone plaint cannot be rejected. He also pointed out that the earlier plaintiff of the suit is now replaced by another authorised representative Mr. Gautam Kumar, who is also authorised by the trustee of the trust of the plaintiff society to proceed with the suit. This Court is fully convince with the 5. submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent
whether the plaintiff of the present suit is authorised representative of the society or not and have a locus to institute the suit is purely a question of fact and law and is the subject matter of the trial which cannot be looked into and examined under the scope of Order VII rule 11 CPC
. In such view of the matter, with the 6. consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is disposed of finally with the direction to the court concerned to proceed with framing a preliminary issue with regard to locus of the plaintiff to institute the suit and decide such preliminary first without being influenced with the earlier order passed on an application moved under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and then proceed to determine other issues. So far as cost is concerned, the same shall remain in abeyance till the conclusion of trial and shall be subject to the final outcome of the pending suit. trial by (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 23.04.2026 Shiv/Pant
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: the instant writ petition is disposed of finally
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. VII r. 11; Constitution of India — art. 227; Registration Act, 1908.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.