Partial rejection of a plaint is impermissible; if any relief survives, the action cannot be dismissed in parts, emphasizing the need for whole plaint consideration.

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J.

1. Present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 22.10.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bathinda whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No. 2 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the prayers made in the suit are covered under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thus, the suit could have only been instituted either by the Advocate General or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and after having obtained the leave of the Court. It is further submitted that the present suit has neither been instituted by the Advocate General nor the leave of the court has been taken. It is argued that the impugned order dated 22.10.2024 vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the above said ground, has been dismissed is illegal and deserves to be set aside.

3. A perusal of the order dated 22.10.2024 would show that the trial Court had observed that in the present case, the plaintiffs have challenged the election of defendant No. 2 to the post of President as illegal and have further sought mandatory injunction for the issuance of a mandate to defendant No. 1/Trust to hold free, fair, impartial and unbiased fresh election and a prayer for permanent injunction has also been made. It had further been observed that the relief sought by the plaintiff does not fall under any of the clause of Section 92 of the CPC and therefore, the suit is not a suit of special nature as envisaged in Section 92 of the CPC and the prior permission of the court is not required. Various prayers have been made in the suit which are reproduced herein-below:

“(A) SUIT FOR DECLARATION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ELECTION OF DEFENDANT NO. 2 FOR THE POST OF PRESIDENT ALLEGEDLY CONDUCTED AND DECLARED ORALLY WITHOUT OFFICIAL DECALRATION BY DEFENDANT NO. 3 AND 4 IS ILLEGAL, NULL, VOID, ULTRAVIROUS, RESULT OF VARIOUS IRREGULARITIES MALPRACTICE, CORRUPT PRACTICE, ARBITRARY, AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL OF DEMOCRATIC-VALUES, THAT TOO WITHOUT DECIDING THE OBJECTIONS AND REPRESENTATION SENT TO DEFENDANTS WHICH IS UNLAWFULLY DECLARED ON 04-09-2024 WITHOUT CONDUCTING ELECTIONS BY DEFENDANT NO. 3 AND 4 WHICH ARE TO BE CONDUCTED, HELD ON 15-09-2024 THUS LIABLE TO BE SET-ASIDED, QUASHED AND THE FRESH ELECTIONS FOR THE POST OF PRESIDENT MAY KINDLY CONSEQUENTLY ORDERED TO BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWFUL DEMOCRATIC VALUES PREVAILING IN INDIA WITH FAIRNESS, FREELY, TRANSPARENCY, WITHOUT BIAS WITHOUT ANY UNDUE INFLUENCE BY ACTUALLY CASTING OF VOTE BY WAY OF SECRET BALLOT;

(B) SUIT FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION FOR ISSUANCE OF MANDATE/DIRECTION/ORDERS TO THE DEFENDANT NOS.1 TRUST TO HOLD THE FREE, FAIR, IMPARTIAL, WITHOUT BIAS, WITHOUT INFLUENCE, FRESH ELECTION OF ENTIRE MANAGING COMMITTEE CONSISTING OF PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT, SECRETARY, JOINT SECRETARY, CASHIER AND 4 EXECUTIVE MEMBERS BY ISSUING NEW SCHEDULE FOR FRESH ELECTIONS AS PER CLAUSE NO. 11 OF THE MEMORANDUM OF TRUST MANDIR SHRI RAM CHANDRA JI REGISTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PREVAILING DEMOCRATIC VALUES, AS PER THE CONSTITUTION OF DEFENDANT NO. 1 TRUST AS WELL AS DEMOCRATIC SET-UP OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BY REMOVING BOTH DEFENDANT NO. 3 AND 4 FROM THE OFFICE OF RETURNING OFFICER AND OBSERVER BY APPOINTING NEW/FRESH RETURNING OFFICER/OBSERVER IN THEIR PLACE THROUGH OR UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF SENIOR PCS/IAS RANK OFFICER BY ISSUING LEGAL VALID LIST OF LEGIBLE VOTER OF DEFENDANT TRUST AND FURTHER DIRECTING THE DEFENDANT ÔÏ ÊÅÅÑ INTACT THE ENTIRE RECORD OF ALLEGED ELECTION PROCESS SUBJECT ADOPTED BY DEFENDANTS FOR EFFECT