A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC if the maintainability of the suit depends on a disputed question of fact, such as the membership status of a party in a society, which requires trial and evidence.

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to set aside the order dated 28.4.2025 passed in lA No. 1481/2022 in OS No. 148/2014 on the file of XI Additional District Judge, Gudivada,

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to order stay of all further proceedings in OS No. 148/2014 on the file of XI Additional District Judge, Gudivada pending disposal of the above CRP in the interest of justice

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

Aggrieved by the order of learned XI Additional District Judge, Gudivada, dated 28.04.2025, whereby the petition filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) to reject the plaint was dismissed, the petitioner has preferred the present civil revision petition.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The petitioner is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.148 of 2014 on the file of learned XI Additional District Judge, Gudivada. The suit was filed against him and two other defendants for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property after ejecting the defendants therefrom by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a Trust Association of the Convention of the Baptist Church of the Northern Circars registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. While the suit is pending trial, defendants 1 and 3 together filed a petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and the 1st defendant is also Secretary of the said Society and as the dispute relates to affairs of the Society, that a civil suit is not maintainable and the plaintiff has to file Original Petition (OP) under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001. Therefore, on the ground that the civil suit is not maintainable, the petition was filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint.

4. The trial Court dismissed the said petition by the impugned order on the ground that as per the averments of the plaint itself that the 1st defendant is not a member of the Society and that the 1st defendant executed a registered lease deed in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of the 2nd defendant and as it is clear from the reading of the plaint averments itself that it is the specific contention of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant is not a member of the Soecity, that the dispute involved in the suit is not relating to the dispute between the Society and its members and as such, the dispute will not fall within the ambit of Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001.

5. This Court finds no legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding of the trial Court. In the written statement filed by the 1st defendant at para No.24, it is stated that the plaintiff has nothing to do with the plaintiff Society as his tenure is kept in abeyance in the year 2008 itself. Further, as per the plaint averments, as rightly observed by the trial Court, the 1st defendant is not a member of the Society. So, it is a disputed question of fact whether both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are the members of the Society or not, as per the pleadings both in the plaint and also in the written statement. So, it cannot be said at this stage that it is pur