IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.
Bansi Ram & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The Tyali Cooperative Consumer Store & Anr. - Respondents
FAO No. 69 Of 2021
Decided On : 14-12-2023
Order 7 Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint - Section 72, Section 76 and Section 92 of the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 - The judgment discusses the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the jurisdiction of Civil Courts, and the requirement of cause of action for the maintainability of a civil suit. It also highlights the principles of deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11, the relevance of pleadings in the plaint, and the limitations of the Court in considering material beyond the plaint.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for Permanent Perpetual and Prohibitory Injunction against the defendants, alleging obstruction in the functioning of a cooperative society. The Trial Court allowed the defendants' application under Order 7 Rule 11, rejecting the plaint. The Appellate Court set aside the Trial Court's order and remitted the matter back for adjudication.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court erred in considering material beyond the plaint and concluding that the plaintiffs had no cause of action. The Appellate Court correctly held that only the pleadings of the plaintiffs should form the basis of the decision under Order 7 Rule 11. The rejection of the plaint based on the defendants' contentions was deemed perverse and not sustainable.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the suit under Order 7 Rule 11, focusing on the existence of cause of action and the Court's jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11, only the averments in the plaint should be considered, and the pleas in the written statement are irrelevant. The Court also highlighted the requirement of cause of action for the maintainability of a civil suit.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment passed by the Appellate Court was upheld, finding no infirmity in its decision.
JUDGMENT :
(Ajay Mohan Goel, J.)
By way of this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment dated 30.04.2019, passed by the Court of learned District Judge (Forest), Shimla, in Civil Appeal No.18-S/13 of 2017/2015, titled The Tyali Co-operative Consumer Store/Society vs. Bansi Ram & Ors., in terms whereof, the learned Appellate Court while allowing the appeal of the respondents herein set aside the order dated 18.03.2015, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Theog, in CMA No.11 of 2006 of 2015, titled The Tyali Co-operative Consumer Store & Anr. vs. Bansi Ram & Ors., in terms whereof, an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioners herein/defendants was allowed.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that respondents/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) have filed a suit against the petitioners/defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) for Permanent Perpetual and Prohibitory Injunction. Petitioners herein filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint on 30.05.2014. It was averred in the application that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was not maintainable as the plaint did not disclose any cause of action and as the plaintiffs were strangers and not members of the Society and were not having any right, title and interest in the Tyali Cooperative Society, therefore, also the suit was not maintainable. It was further averred in the application that the Court was having no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in terms of the law relating to Cooperative Society and no Court including a Civil Court was having power or jurisdiction to entertain any such suit.
3. The application was resisted by the plaintiffs. In terms of order dated 18.03.2015, passed by the learned Trial Court, the application was allowed. Learned Trial Court returned the following findings while allowing the application, which are being reproduced hereinbelow:-
AI
The judgment establishes the principle that while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11, the Court should only consider the averments in the plaint and the requirement of cause of action for ....
The court clarified that statutory bar under Order VII Rule 11(d) requires clear prohibition for dismissal, emphasizing the distinction between jurisdiction and maintainability.
Jurisdiction of civil courts is barred in challenging cooperative society actions under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act without prior notice as required by law.
A suit for damages against a co-operative society or its officers regarding business matters requires mandatory notice under Section 125 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering documents filed along with the plaint for deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The judgment emphasized....
A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC if it discloses a cause of action and is not barred by any law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.