The main legal point established is that the reliefs sought for in a suit must disclose a cause of action for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. B. Dutta, learned senior counsel for the petitioners.

2. The petitioners namely, Satyanarayan Agarwal and Prakash Kumar Baid are arrayed as defendants No. 1 and 2, respectively in Title Suit No. 55/2022 in the Court of learned Munsiff, Tinsukia. Title Suit No. 55/2022 had been instituted by the School Management Committee Tinsukia English Academy as plaintiff No. 1, Raman Agarwal being the President of the School Management Committee as plaintiff No. 2 and Ram Ekbal Yadav being the Secretary of the School Management Committee as plaintiff No. 3. In the suit the Tinsukia English Academy Society and Manav Kalyan Trust respectively are arrayed as proforma defendants. In the suit, the petitioners herein made an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint which was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 67/2023. Misc. (J) Case No. 67/2023 was given a final consideration by the order dated 12.10.2023 and taking note of the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC, the Court was of the view that it was not a fit case for rejection of the plaint and accordingly, Misc. (J) Case No. 67/2023 was rejected. Being aggrieved, this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution has been instituted.

3. Mr. B. Dutta, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has raised two contentions for assailing the order impugned dated 12.10.2023 in Misc. (J) Case No. 67/2023. The first contention is that the plaintiff respondent School Management Committee Tinsukia English Academy had been constituted by the Tinsukia English Academy Society and it being so, it has no locus standi to institute the Title Suit No. 55/2022. The second contention is that the Title Suit No. 55/2022 is essentially a suit against the Tinsukia English Academy Society and it being so, there is a requirement to follow the provisions of Order I Rule 8(1) of the CPC meaning thereby, that it being suit against the interest of numerous persons, prior permission of the Court would be required for institution of a suit which in the instant case had not been obtained.

4. On the first contention that the School Management Committee Tinsukia English Academy has no locus standi to institute Title Suit No. 55/2022, we accept the contention made by Mr. B. Dutta, learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the School Management Committee had been constituted by the Tinsukia English Academy Society. But what is noticed is that the Title Suit No. 55/2022 had been instituted seeking the following reliefs :

“(i) Declaration that the plaintiff no.1 i.e. School Management Committee represented by the plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 are the legally authorized persons to manage the affairs of the school i.e. Tinsukia English Medium Academy;

(ii) Declaration that the defendant nos.1 and 2 have no any right and authority to interfere into the running and operation of the management of the school i.e. Tinsukia English Academy;

(iii) Permanent injunction restraining the defendant nos. 1 and 2, their men, agents, servants or any person(s) claiming through or under them from disturbing the peaceful management of the school- Tinsukia English Academy or doing any act prejudicial to the interests of the plaintiffs as well as the Tinsukia English Academy in any manner whatsoever;

(iv) Temporary Injunction as prayed above;

(v) Leave under Order II, Rule 2;

(vi) Leave under Order VI, Rule 17;

(vii) Cost of the suit

(viii) Any other relief(s) which the plaintiffs are entitled under the law.”

5. The first relief sought for is for a declaration that the School Management Committee of Tinsukia English Academy being represented by the plaintiffs No. 2 and 3, namely, Raman Agarwal and Ram Ekbal Yadav are legally authorized persons to manage the affairs of the school and the second relief is for a declaration that the defendants No. 1 and 2 in the suit namely, Satyanarayan Agarwal and Prakash Kumar Baid have no right and authority to interfere in the running and operatio