IMPORTANT POINT
A resignation from membership in a society under the Telangana Societies Registration Act renders the individual ineligible to file disputes under Section 23 of the Act.

ORDER :

Sujoy Paul, J.

The interesting conundrum in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is, whether the principle of “nip in the bud” can be applied in a proceeding pursuant to an application filed under Section 23 of the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001 (for short ‘the Act’). Putting it differently, whether the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) was maintainable in the proceedings under the Act and whether the trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint by order dated 20.03.2024 in I.A.No.1676 of 2023 in S.O.P.No.10 of 2023.

Factual Background:

2. The petitioner filed the application with the following prayer:

“ i) to declare the actions of the Respondent No.2 to 13 in pressing into service the undated draft resignation letter of the Petitioner by forging the date and removing Petitioner as founding member of the Respondent No.1 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust in law and set aside the same as null and void and not binding upon the Petitioner;

ii) to grant a relief of mandatory injunction thereby directing the Respondent No.2 to 13 to furnish the copies of the undated letter, undated MOU, board resolution on the basis of which Respondents have pressed into service the undated draft resignation letter of Petitioner and removed Petitioner as founding member of the Respondent No.1.

iii) to grant a relief of mandatory injunction thereby directing the Respondent No.1 to 13 to furnish all the financial accounts, books and statements of the Petitioner Society from 2006-07 to the present financial year before this Hon’ble Court.

iv) to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to verify the vouchers, receipts, donations, balance sheets and accounts of the Respondent No.1 Society.

v) To consequently grant a Relief of Perpetual Injunction thereby restraining the Respondents 2 to 13, their representatives, employees and all persons acting on behalf of Respondent No.2 to 13 from illegally stopping the Petitioner from entering into the registered office premises and “St.Peters Engineering College” located at Kompally, Medchal of Respondent No.1 Society.

vi) To grant a relief of Permanent injunction thereby restraining the Respondents 2 to 13 from in any way accepting, honouring, permitting and allowing any kind of interference in the matters of pertaining to the admission, appointments and administration of educational institution named as “St.Peters Engineering College” located at Kompally, Medchal of Respondent No.1 Society.

vii) By awarding the costs of the proceedings and other incidental expenses/charges etc., incurred to by the Petitioner; and

viii) To grant any such relief(s) as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and to which the Petitioner is legally entitled to, in the interest of justice.”

3. Upon receiving notice, the Society entered appearance and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint. In turn, the petitioner filed his counter. After hearing both the parties, the Court passed impugned order dated 20.03.2024 and rejected the plaint.

Contention of the Petitioner:

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner raised two fold submissions. Firstly, it is submitted that the provisions of CPC are not borrowed under the Act. The petitioner also took an objection of maintainability of said application preferred under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. In the impugned order, the said objection has not been dealt with. Since Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is not applicable, the question of rejection of plaint does not arise. The ‘Plaint’ is defined under Order VI of CPC. The plaint cannot be equated with ‘application’ filed under Section 23 of the Act. By placing reliance on Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment in case of Kanta vs. Arvind Tare 2011(3) M.P.L.J, it is submitted that the word ‘Plaint’ has a definite connotation under the CPC. The same cannot be stretched to include application under Sectio