$~O-31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 390/2025 MANAVA BHARATI SOCIETY MUSSOORIE AND DEHRADUN & ANR. .....Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Arun Kumar Varma, Sr. Adv.

with Mr. Kharanshu Rana, Adv.

versus SHIV DUTT BAKSHI & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury, Adv.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 11.12.2025 I.A. 14666/2025 (exemption)

1. Plaintiff shall file legible/original/certified and clearer copies of exempted documents, compliant with practice rules, before the next date of hearing.

2. The application for exemption is allowed, subject to the plaintiff granting exemption of the documents filed, as and when required to do so, or filing the original documents at the stage of admission/denial.

3. The application stands disposed of.

CS(OS) 390/2025 and I.A. 19624/2025 (under Section 151 and 152 of CPC for recalling the order dated 25.07.2025)

4. This matter was called out on 30.05.2025 and Mr. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the defendant, appeared on advance instructions and raised an objection on the anvil of Section 13 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) regarding maintainability of the suit. The hearing was, thereafter, adjourned.

5. Then on 25.07.2025, Mr. Chowdhury raised another objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this Court since defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are residing outside Delhi. The aforesaid submission was noted, and the Court was, prima facie, inclined to dismiss the suit on the said grounds.

6. However, on the request of Mr. Varma, learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs, the hearing was adjourned.

7. Thereafter, I.A. 19624/2025 was filed, and various documents were brought on record to indicate that defendants No.1 and 2 reside within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Mr. Chowdhury, thereafter, was granted time to file the reply to the same.

8. Mr. Chowdhury has filed the reply and has opposed the said I.A. 19624/2025 to contend that the documents which are placed on record by the plaintiff are forged, and as of now, defendant No.1 and 2 are not residing in the jurisdiction of this Court. Additionally, the objections with respect to Section 13 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 are also reiterated by him while placing reliance on the decision in Terapalli Dyvasahata Kumar v.

S.M. Kantha Raju.

9. At the outset, it is noted that the suit is at the initial stage and summons have not been issued.

10. In view of the aforesaid, it needs to be considered whether, on the

2018 11 SCC 769

basis of the said decision, the suit deserves to be rejected at this stage.

11. Much emphasis has been laid by Mr. Chowdhury on Paragraphs No. 12, 13, 16 and 17 of Terapalli Dyvasahata Kumar. Paragraphs no. 12 and

17 of the said decision are extracted as under:

12. It will be apparent that the scheme of the Societies Registration Act on the one hand, and that of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Act and the consolidating Act of 2001 on the other is completely different. On the one hand, the 1860 Act refers the dispute that arises under Section 13 only to the Principal Court of Original Civil Jurisdiction of the district in which the chief building of the society is situate. Under this Act therefore, jurisdiction is confined to one court and one court only: that is the Principal Court of Original Civil Jurisdiction where the actual physical main building of the society is situate. On the other hand, Section 11 of the 1940 Act and Section 23 of the 2001 Act enable the person aggrieved to file an application in the “District Court concerned”. It is this expression that has to be construed by this Court in the present case.

****

17. This judgment would be relevant if the pari materia provision under Section 13 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 had fallen for decision. As has been pointed out above, this provision gives only one court jurisdiction — the Principal Court of Original Civil Jurisdiction of the district in which