Back
2022 Supreme(Kar) 1599
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.I.Arun, J.
Smt.Sunanda W/o Sridhara B Rudrappa - Appellant
Vs.
Satya Deepa Ashrama Bellur Represented By Its Secretary - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 62 Of 2019
Decided On : 10-11-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri. Amaresh A Angadi, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
A society must have the necessary authorization under Section 15 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, to file a suit, and failure to produce the authorization at the time of filing the suit can lead to the rejection of the suit.
Headnote:
Cause of Action - Society Registration - Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 - Section 15
Fact of the Case:
The defendant filed a revision petition against the order of the trial court, which rejected their application to dismiss the plaintiff's suit. The defendant contended that the plaintiff, a registered society, did not have the necessary authorization under Section 15 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, to file the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to produce the required authorization under Section 15 of the Act at the time of filing the suit, and the previous suit filed by the plaintiff was also rejected on the same ground. Therefore, the court allowed the defendant's petition and rejected the plaintiff's suit.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff's suit was barred by law due to the lack of authorization under Section 15 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a society must have the necessary authorization under Section 15 of the Act to file a suit, and the plaintiff's failure to produce the authorization at the time of filing the suit led to the rejection of the suit.
Final Decision: The court allowed the defendant's petition, set aside the trial court's order, and rejected the plaintiff's suit.
ORDER
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.12.2018 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & C.J.M. at Kolar on I.A. filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.49/2010, defendant No.3 therein has preferred this revision petition.
2. Notice to respondent No.2 herein has been dispensed with. Respondent No.1 herein, who is the plaintiff in the original suit and respondent No.3 herein, though served have remained unrepresented.
3. The suit before the trial Court has been filed by respondent No.1. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 claims to be a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act', for short). It has filed the instant suit for declaration and mandatory injunction. The petitioner herein, apart from other things, has contended before the trial Court that respondent No.1-plaintiff is a fictitious person having no right over the property and Section 15 of the Act has not been complied with before filing of the suit. After the evidence of the plaintiff's side was completed, the petitioner-defendant No.3 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC on the ground that the evidence discloses that the plaintiff-Society is not in existence and the permission under Section 15 of the Act has not been complied with and for that reason, prayed for rejection of the plaint. The said application was opposed by respondent No.1-plaintiff. The trial Court on the ground that while rejecting the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC has observed that only the averments in the plaint has to be looked into and in the instant case, while looking into the averments made in the plaint the same is maintainable and on the said ground, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the instant petition is filed.
4. The case of the petitioner is that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action and that the suit is barred by law and the trial Court failed to appreciate the same and that the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC can be filed at any point of time and on the said ground, it is prayed that the petition be allowed.
5. The question that arises for consideration in the instant petition is:
Whether the plaint does not disclose the cause of action or is barred by law as contended by the petitioner or not ?
6. It is a settled proposition of law that application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC can be made at any point of time during the pendency of the suit. It is also settled proposition of law that the Court while deciding the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC has to consider only the averments made in the plaint and cannot take into consideration the pleadings in the written statement or the evidence let in. If the plaint on the face of it does not disclose any cause of action or is barred by law, then the plaint can be rejected.
7. Pleadings in the plaint reveals that the plaintiff- Society is registered under the Act. It had earlier filed O.S.No.155/2007 in respect of the same schedule property which culminated in rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred under Section 15 of the Act and respondent No.1 - Plaintiff filed an appeal in RFA No.580/2009 and this Court permitted the plaintiff to withdraw the appeal with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the same schedule property. Pursuant to which the present suit has been preferred by respondent No.1 - Plaintiff. The plaint further reveals that the cause of action of suit arose on 02.11.2009 when the defendants had wrongly invaded other schedule property and demolished two buildings existing there and put up a house and shed in a portion of the schedule property.
8. Thus, in my opinion, the plaint does disclose the cause of action. Now what needs to be considered is whether suit is barred by law as contended by the plaintiff.
Section 15 of the Act reads as under:
15. Suits by and against society:- Every society regi
