2024 Supreme(All) 986
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
Smt. Reeta Devi And 3 Others – Appellant
Versus
Raj Kamal Sahakari Awas Yojna And Another – Respondents
Second Appeal No.454 of 2024
Decided on : 01-07-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Prashant Kumar Mishra, Sharad Malviya
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a Co-operative Society can only be represented by a living Secretary, and the death of the Secretary necessitates a proper substitution process rather than an outright rejection of the plaint.
Headnote:
CIVIL PROCEDURE - REJECTION OF PLAINT - Order 7 Rule 11, Order 22 Rule 10-A, Section 2(2), Section 96 C.P.C., Sections 29, 31(2), 9 of Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, Section 148 C.P.C. - The court discussed the legal provisions regarding the rejection of plaints under the Civil Procedure Code, particularly focusing on the obligations of a pleader to inform the court of a party's death and the implications of such an event on the proceedings. The court emphasized that the trial court failed to follow the proper procedure after being informed of the Secretary's death, leading to an improper rejection of the plaint. The provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act were also highlighted, establishing that a society can sue through its Secretary, and the death of the Secretary should have prompted a substitution process rather than a rejection of the plaint.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a Co-operative Housing Society, filed a suit to declare a sale deed null and void. The trial court rejected the plaint due to non-compliance with a court fee order, despite the Secretary's death being noted on the same day. The society appealed, arguing that the rejection was unjustified given the circumstances.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court improperly rejected the plaint without following the necessary procedure for substitution after being informed of the Secretary's death. The appellate court's decision to allow the appeal was upheld, as the rejection was deemed premature.
Issues: Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the plaint without facilitating the substitution of the deceased Secretary and whether the appellate court's decision to allow the appeal was correct.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court's rejection of the plaint was improper as it failed to adhere to the procedural requirements outlined in the Civil Procedure Code regarding the death of a party and the representation of a juristic person.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, affirming the appellate court's decision to set aside the trial court's order rejecting the plaint.
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
1. Heard Sri Sharad Malviya, learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
2. The plaintiff-respondent is a Co-operative Housing Society and instituted a suit for declaration of a sale deed dated 07.09.2012 inter se defendant-appellants as null and void.
3. An issue with regard to the valuation of the suit and payment of court fee was framed by the trial court. It was decided against the plaintiff-respondent and it was directed to make good deficiency of court fees.
4. Sri Sharad Malviya, learned counsel submits that the plaintiff did not comply with the order of the trial court and, consequently, the plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(c) C.P.C. by order dated 21.08.2017. The said order amounts to a decree as per Section 2(2) C.P.C. and assailable under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code. Civil Appeal was filed by the society through a different Secretary and it has been allowed by the impugned judgment dated 26.02.2024 only on the ground that the Secretary of the society had died on 17.08.2017 and, therefore, the trial court was not justified in rejecting the plaint without facilitating the procedure for substitution/due representation of the parties. He submits that the order for making good deficiency was passed long ago and it remained un-complied with for years together and, therefore, merely because the Secretary of the society died in August, 2017, the same could not be a ground for allowing the appeal.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, this Court finds that the date of death of the Secretary was noted in the margin of the order-sheet dated 21.08.2017. The said endorsement was made by the counsel for the plaintiff-respondent i.e. the society. On the same date the plaint was rejected by the trial court. The endorsement reads as under:-
Jheku th]
oknh dh e`R;q gks pqdh gSA
gŒ
21-8-2017
6. As per the Order 22 Rule 10-A of C.P.C., whenever a pleader appearing for a party to the suit comes to know of the death of that party, he is under obligation to inform the court about it, and the court shall thereupon give notice of such death to the other party and, for this purpose, the contract between the pleader and the deceased party shall be deemed to subsist. For ready reference, Order 22 Rule 10-A reads as under:-
"10A. Duty or pleader to communicate to Court death of a party— Wherever a pleader appearing for a party to the suit comes to know of the death of that party, he shall inform the Court about it, and the Court shall there upon give notice of such death to the other party, and, for this purpose, the contract between the pleader and the deceased party shall be deemed to subsist."
7. In view of the fact that the counsel for the plaintiff society informed the court by making an endorsement in the margin of the order-sheet about death of the secretary, the trial court, on the same date, was not justified in rejecting the plaint and it should have followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 10-A of Order 22. As a matter of fact, the plaint has been rejected against a dead person.
8. Although the plaintiff was not a human being but certainly it was a Co-operative Housing Society and a juristic person on which the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 are applicable. For the purposes of the instant case, Sections 29 and 31(2) of the Act of 1965 are required to be referred. The same read as under:-
"29. Committee of Management.
(1) The management of every co-operative society shall vest in a Committee of Management constituted in accordance with this Act, the rules and the bye-laws, which shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be conferred or imposed by this Act, the rules and the byelaws."
"31(2). The Secretary shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the society and subject to such control and supervision of the Chairman and the committee of management as may be provided in the rules or the bye-laws of the society shall -
(