ORDER BELOW EXH. 16 IN R. C. S. NO. 519/2023.

This is an application filed by defendant under Order VII Rule 11 rw S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (in short CPC) for rejection of the plaint as there is no cause of action and also the suit appears from the statement in the plaint is barred by law as the plaintiff has no any locus standi to institute the suit.

2. The defendant through the application stated that the plaintiff claiming himself to be so-called ‘Swayansevak’ of so-called organization namely ‘Rashtriya Swayansevak Sangh’ (in short as ‘RSS’). The plaintiff has sought relief at the behest of so-called RSS claiming and alleging that the defendant has caused damage to the goodwill and reputation of so-called RSS. The plaintiff has claimed compensation for the defamation and damages caused to third party i.e. so-called RSS. The plaintiff has not pleaded that the so-called RSS is a ‘legal person’ and whether the plaintiff has been legally authorized to claim any relief on behalf of the so-called RSS and how the plaintiff is related to Golwalkar Guruji and if it is not related to leader Golwalkar Guruji, then how he can claim any relief on his behalf?. So, the plaintiff has not locus standi to file the present suit and therefore the plaint deserves to be rejected under O. VII R. 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is difference between ‘legal person’ and a ‘definite and identifiable body’. He further stated that whether right to file criminal complaint on behalf of such definite and identifiable body shall be considered at par with or giving a civil right to member to file the suit. The RSS is not register body and therefore, not a legal person. In the absence of legal character and entity neither such unregistered body can sue or be sued in its own name nor authorize someone to file a civil suit. The plaintiff has also not mentioned cause of action for filing the suit. No permission of the Court has been sought by the plaintiff for filing the suit on behalf of the so-called RSS. The suit is undervalued and Court fees paid is also insufficient. The Court has not jurisdiction to entertain or decide the suit. Hence, prayed to plaint be rejected.

3. The plaintiff strongly resisted the application by filling say below exh. 18. It is contended by the plaintiff that in para no. 1 of the plaint there is pleading which speaks about what is RSS and the locus of plaintiff to file the suit. The RSS is determinate body and it will fall under the Explanation 2 of Section 499 of the IPC. So, any aggrieved person can file a complaint. There are triable issues appears from the pleading in plaint and such triable issues cannot be considered by filling the application. RSS and its Swayamsevek are inseparable. The current Hon’ble President, Vice President, Prime Minister and several Ministers in Union of India are from this esteemed Organization. Hence, prayed to reject the application.

4. Heard Learned Advocate for the defendant and also Learned Advocate for the plaintiff; at length.

5. Considering the pleadings, material on record and arguments advanced at bar, following points arise for my determination and I record my findings thereon, for the reasons discussed herein below.

POINTS FINDINGS [I] Whether the suit appears from the statement in the plaint that it liable to be rejected vide No Order VII Rule 11 (a), (b) (c) & (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ?.

[II] What Order? Application is rejected.

REASONS AS TO POINTS No. 1 :-

6. Learned Advocate for the defendant argued that as there is no cause of action. The plaint is not properly valued and not paid sufficient stamp duty. The plaintiff has not locus standi to file the suit, therefore the suit is barred by law. Whereas, Learned advocate for the plaintiff argued that the suit is properly valued and paid requisite court feed in view of relief sought and cause of action specifically mentioned in plaint. Plaintiff has locus standi to file the suit as he is Swayamseva