JUDGMENT:- Rule returnable forthwith.

2. Heard with consent of parties.

3. This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff.

4. The facts are as follows:

Plaintiff is the Chief Promoter of Society known as "Seth Kisanlalji Goenka Puram Akola". The Society entered into a contract of purchase of land with respondents. The defendant/respondent NO.1 was not ready to perform his part of the contract Plaintiff therefore, instituted a suit for specific performance of contract.

5. Defendant had filed Written Statement and had resisted the suit. We are not much concerned with the contention in the Written Statement. Issues were framed by the trial Court and trial Court even recorded part of evidence. The suit is instituted in the year 1989 but the defendants moved an application under Order 7. Rule II read with Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code on 29/06/2006.

6. Trial Court heard this application and allowed the application and rejected the plaint. Aggrieved by this rejection of plaint this appeal has been preferred.

7. I have heard both sides.

8. The main contention of the defendant No.1 in the application is that Society has been formed and it is not registered. It is, therefore, merely a body of persons and not a juristic person. It is contended that an uncorporated association of persons cannot sue in its proposed name without obtaining leave of the Court under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code. Since such leave is not secured it is contended that the plaintiffs suit is liable to be dismissed.

9. Plaintiff filed a very cryptic reply to this application contending that the suit is not filed by Society but is filed by one Ramesh Sule. Hence the application is without substance.

10. Plaintiff describes himself as follows:

"Shri. Ramesh Shriram Sule, Aged about 44 years, Occu. Service, Chief Promoter of "Seth Kisanlalji Goenka Puram, Akola" A Society formed for purpose of constructing Residential accommodation, for needy people of Akola Tq. And distt. Akola."

Description itself makes it clear that the suit is filed for Society and not by Ramesh Sule in his personal capacity. There cannot be two opinions that a suit by unregistered society would not be maintainable since the unregistered society is not a juristic person. In that case all members of the society will have to sue together as plaintiffs or one of them could sue by seeking the leave under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code. The decision cited by Shri. Laiswal learned counsel for the respondents in Mathura Bhawan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator & Another, 2003(5) Bombay Cases Reporter 481 is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. The material question however is, whether the plaint could have been rejected because no leave under Order I. Rule 8 is sought or the plaint could be said to be defective. Rule II of Order 7 reads as follows:

"Rejection of plaint.- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:

(a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) Where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) Where the relief claimed is property valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court fails to do so;

(d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

(e) Where it is not filed in duplicate;

(f) Where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9."

Shri. Laiswal learned counsel for respondents/ defendants contends that suit could be said to be barred under Clause(d) as it is a suit filed by a non juristic person or by a person who alone has no authority to institute such suit. We have seen that Ramesh Sule alone could not institute the suit and Society being unregistered is not a juristic person at all.

11.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document