( 1 ) APPELLANT is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 21 of 1860. Five persons of whom some are respondents before us instituted a suit in the court of Civil Judge, Varanasi challenging the election of the Managing Committee and other elected officers of the appellant and asked for rendition of accounts. This suit of 1981 is still pending. We are now concerned with the correctness of the finding on the preliminary issue as to whether such a suit is maintainable in the civil court. The defendants objection to the maintainability is grounded upon the provisions contained in S. 23 and 25 of the Registration Act. The courts below have taken the view that the suit is not barred. That is why the defendants are here by special leave.

( 2 ) A litigant having a grievance of a civil nature has, independently of any statute, a right to institute a suit in the civil court unless its cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. The position is well settled that exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil court is not to be readily inferred and such exclusion must be either express or implied.

( 3 ) RELIANCE has been placed by Mr Mukhoty before us on the ratio of the Constitution bench decision of this court in K. S. Venkataraman and Co. v. State of Madras where reference has been made to the Privycouncil case in Raleigh Investment Co. Ltd. v. governor-General in council. It has been laid down that the civil courts jurisdiction would be presumed unless the contrary is indicated. Mr Mukhoty has also relied a upon two other decisions being Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar and Dhulabhai v. State of M. P. The legal position thus seems to be clear and it is not necessary to quote further authorities.

( 4 ) WHAT is really in dispute is the application of the rule to the facts of the case. To ascertain whether the suit would be barred, the effect of b the provisions of S. 23 and 25 of the Registration Act with the U. P. amendments has to be considered. These S. provide:

"23. Audit. (1 Without prejudice to the provisions of sub S. (2 of S. 4 or of S. 22, where the Registrar is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, he may, by written order, require any society to furnish its accounts or a copy of a statement of receipts and expenditure for any particular year duly audited by a Chartered Accountant: Provided that the Registrar may, at the request of society permit it to have such accounts and statement audited by any other person by him.

(2 If the society fails to furnish the documents referred to in Ss. (1 within the period specified in the order or with such extended period as the Registrar may from time to time allow, the Registrar may cause the accounts of such society audited for the said year and may recover the cost of such audit from that society.

(3 If the society neglects or refuses to make its account or other documents available for audit under Ss. (2 or, in the opinion of the Registrar, otherwise fails to provide requisite facilities to have the audit made with due expedition, the Registrar may proceed to take action under S. 24.

( 5 ) DISPUTES regarding election of office bearers. (1 The prescribed authority may, on a reference made to it by the Registrar or by at least one-fourth of the members of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh, hear and decide in a summary manner any doubt or 9 dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office bearer of such society, and may pass such orders in respect thereof as it deems fit: Provided that the election of an office bearer shall be set aside where the prescribed authority is satisfied:

(A) that any corrupt practice has been committed by such office bearer; or

(B) that the nomination of any candidate has been improperly rejected; or

(C) that the result of the election insofar as it concerns such office bearer has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of any nomination or by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vot