IMPORTANT POINT
A dismissal of a suit for disappearance of cause of action does not operate as res judicata, allowing for subsequent litigation on the same issues.

JUDGMENT

Sashikanta Mishra, J.

The present appeal is directed against the reversing judgment passed by the Second Addl. District Judge, Cuttack in RFA No.107/2010 on 13th August, 2012. The present appellant was the Defendant No.1 in C.S. No.485/2007 of the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), 1st Court, Cuttack. The said suit filed by the present Respondents-Plaintiffs was for declaration that as per the resolution passed on 9th November, 2007 by the General Body of the Plaintiff Sangha, Defendant No.1 is no longer the Secretary of the said Sangha and has no authority to represent it in the body of Orissa Cricket Association (OCA)-Defendant No.2, as its representative with further declaration that the Sangha had not passed any resolution on 15th December, 2006 electing its office bearers and for appointment of receiver/observer for conducting the election of the office bearers of the Sangha on or before 23rd January, 2008. Further declaration was prayed for that the Plaintiffs are the lawfully elected care-taker office bearers of the Sangha as per extraordinary General Body Meeting dated 9th November, 2007 and are therefore authorized to represent the Sangha for all purposes and for a direction to the Defendant No.2 to recognize the elected representatives of the Sangha in its body as members. As per judgment passed on 6th October, 2010 followed by a decree, learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), 1st Court Cuttack dismissed the suit on contest. The said judgment and decree as already stated was reversed by the First Appellate Court by decreeing the suit in part.

2. The present appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law;

'(i) Whether the learned 1st Appellate Court has committed gross error of law in arriving at a conclusion that the order dt.8.11.2007 vide Ext.Q passed in C.S. No.67/2004 will stand as resjudicata under Section 11 C.P.C. and thus debarred the learned trial Court from exercising its jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue relating to the resolution dt.15.1.2004, specifically when the said order dt.8.11.2007 was not passed on merit nor the same is based on any assessment of any evidence on record on the issue of validity of the resolution dt.15.1.2004 in the earlier suit.

(ii) Whether the learned Court below committed gross error of law by holding that there is no valid resolution on 15.12.2006 re-electing the appellant as the Secretary of the Sangha, specifically when there is no challenge to the said resolution from any side in the earlier suit although it was very' much filed by the appellant in the previous C.S. No.67/2004 and hence the instant claim is barred under Section 11 Exp.IV of C.P.C.'

For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their respective status in the trial Court.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Netaji Sangha (Plaintiff No.1) is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 in the year 1971-72 having been established, inter alia, to develop sportsmanship among its members through participation in different sports events. The OCA granted affiliation to the Plaintiff Sangha with its Secretary being an ex-officio member of the association. Defendant No.1 was elected as the Secretary of the Plaintiff Sangha on 20th December, 2001. There being allegations of mismanagement of the affairs of the Sangha and mis-appropriation of its funds etc. an extraordinary General Body of the Sangha was held on 15th January, 2004, whereby he was removed from the post of Secretary as also from primary membership of the Sangha. One Siba Prasad Mukherjee was elected as President and one Tarun Kumar Mukherjee as Secretary of the Sangha. Challenging the Resolution dated 15th January, 2004 as illegal and unconstitutional, Defendant No.1 filed Civil Suit No.67/2004 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), 1st Court, Cuttack seeking a declaration that he was still continuing as the Secretary of the Sangha and for permanent injunction against the