IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM AN ORDER PASSED IN ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE APO 27 of 2025 WITH CS 364 OF 2014 SUKHLAL CHANDANMULL (P) LTD.

Versus HARROW HALL Present :

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak -And-

The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi For the Appellant : Md. Sabyasachi Chaudhury, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Shaunak Mukhopadhyay, Adv.

Ms. Anuradha Poddar, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Rohit Banerjee, Adv. Mr.Altamash Alim, Adv.

HEARD ON : 10.11.2025 DELIVERED ON : 10.11.2025 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated February 12, 2025 passed in IA GA 7 of 2022 in CS 364 of 2014.

2. By the impugned judgment and order, learned Single Judge allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

3. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the appellant filed a suit for eviction against the defendant. In the facts and circumstances of the present case the defendant was enjoying the tenancy under the appellant. He draws the attention of the Court to the cause title of the plaint. He submits that, the defendant is described as a society registered under the Societies Registration Act represented through its Secretary. He also draws the attention of the Court to Section 19 of the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. He submits that, under Section 19(1) of the Act of 1961, every society may sue or be sued in the name of the President, the Secretary or any office bearer authorised by the Governing Body in that behalf.

4. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the word “in the name of” as used in Section 19 of the Act 1961 should be understood to mean that it refers to the office of the President, the Secretary or any Office Bearer authorised by the Governing Body. He submits that there is no infirmity in the description of the defendant as appearing in the cause title of the plaint.

5. In support of the contention that, suit cannot be dismissed under Section 19 of the Act of 1961 learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant relies upon (2003) 3 Calcutta High Court Notes 583 (Kalpana Sarkar vs. Ramkrishna Mission), and an unreported decision of the learned Single Judge dated August 28, 2023 rendered in C.O. No. 1344 of

2023 (Salkia Vivekananda Sporting Club vs. Bankey Lal Jaiswal)

6. Learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent submits that, the suit as against the respondent is not maintainable in view of Section 19 of the Act of 1961. He refers to the provisions of Section 19 of the Act of 1961 and contends that the name of the natural person holding the post of President, the Secretary, or the Office Bearer of the association who is authorised by the Governing Body of the association to sue or be sued on behalf of the association, is required to be impleaded as a defendant in the suit.

7. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant relies upon AIR 1977 Cal 437 (12, I.C. Bose Road Tenants’ Association vs. Collector of Howrah & Ors.) and (2003) 8 Supreme Court Cases 413 (Illachi Devi (Dead) by Lrs. And Ors. Vs. Jain Society, Protection of Orphans India and Ors.) in support of the contention that, a society registered under the Act of 1961 does not enjoy the status of the company. It is not a juristic person.

8. Learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent relies upon (2010) 3 Calcutta High Court Notes 755 (Sha-San Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. vs. Thakur Corner Buabsayee Kalyan Samity & Ors. and 2009 Supreme Court Cases OnLine Cal 909 (National Council of YMCA’s of India vs. Skippers Textiles Private Ltd.) in support of the contention that, the suit by or against a registered society without the President or Secretary or Office Bearer of the society not being named, is not maintainable.

9. The appellant as the plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the defendant. In the cause title of the plaint the pl