2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 4499
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Satyen Vaidya, J
Virender Singh Chauhan – Appellant
Versus
Ajay Kumar and others – Respondent
CMPMO No.250 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate
An unregistered association lacks legal standing to sue, and an individual cannot file a suit on behalf of such an association without representative capacity.
Headnote:(A) Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Supervisory jurisdiction - The petitioner challenged the appellate court's order setting aside the interim injunction granted in a civil suit regarding the election of office bearers of a teachers' association. The trial court had found a prima facie case favoring the plaintiff, but the appellate court ruled there was no evidence of the association's legal standing. (Paras 1, 2, 10, 12)
(B) Legal standing - The appellate court concluded that an unregistered association cannot sue in its own name, and the suit was improperly filed by an individual rather than in a representative capacity. (Paras 10, 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, as President of the Himachal Pradesh Government Teachers Union, filed a suit to prevent elections being held by defendants, claiming they had no right to conduct such elections. An interim injunction was granted by the trial court but was later overturned by the appellate court.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court found legal flaws in the suit's maintainability due to the lack of registration of the association and the improper filing by an individual rather than as a representative of the association.
Issues: The main issues were the legal standing of the association and the capacity in which the suit was filed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that an unregistered association lacks the legal capacity to sue or be sued, and thus the suit was not maintainable. The appellate court's findings regarding the absence of a prima facie case were upheld.
Result: The petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of suit regarding election of office bearers. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. challenge to appellate court's order. (Para 8) |
| 3. legal standing and maintainability of the suit. (Para 10 , 14) |
| 4. court's observation on legal standing and capacity. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. final decision on the petition. (Para 15 , 16) |
Satyen Vaidya, Judge
By way of instant petition, the petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail order dated 26.04.2025 passed by learned Additional District Judge (I), Shimla in CMA No. 8/2025, whereby the order passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.4, Shimla dated 30.11.2024 in CMA No.3172/2024 in Civil Suit No.156/2024 has been set-aside and the application of the petitioner herein under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC has been ordered to be dismissed.
2. The petitioner herein, is the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 156/2024 pending on the files of learned Civil Judge, Court No.4, Shimla. The parties, hereafter shall be referred to by the same status as they hold before learned trial Court.
3. The plaintiff has filed the suit on the premise that Himachal Pradesh Government Teachers Union (for short, “HGTU”) is an Association of the teachers working in Gover nment Sector in the State and the said Association is governed by its Rules and Byelaws. It is claimed that ‘HGTU’ is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The plaintiff claimed that the election to the posts of office bearers of ‘HGTU’ were conducted in 2023 and plaintiff was its elected President. He alleged that the defendants were wrongly proclaiming in themselves the right to hold elections for the post of office bearers of ‘HGTU’ and they had wrongly issued a notification for holding the election on 26.11.2024. In this background, the suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction has been filed.
4. The defendants are contesting the suit.
5. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short. ‘Code’) seeking interim injunction during the pendency of the suit against the defendants. An order of interim injunction was sought to restrain the defendants from holding elections in terms of notification dated 26.11.2024.
6. Learned trial Court after hearing both the sides allowed the application for interim relief vide order dated 30.11.2023. The defendants were restrained from holding the elections to the State Body of HGTU for the Session 2024-2027 on 01.12.2024 and on any subsequent dates during the pendency of the suit. The defendants were further restrained from using the Logo, Insignia, name and registration No. of the plaintiff’s Union i.e. ‘Himachal Government Teachers Un ion’.
7. The defendants assailed the order dated 30.11.2024 passed by learned trial Court by filing appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (r) of the Code. The appeal of the defendants has been allowed vide impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge (1), Shimla. Hence this petition.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.
9. Learned trial Court allowed the application of the plaintiff for interim relief on being swayed by the report of some observer with respect to the election held to the State Body of HGTU in the year 2023. Learned trial Court prima-facie concluded that since the elections had already been held in the year 2023 and the term of the body being three years, the defendants could not hold fresh elections, that too, under the banner of HGTU. The balance of convenience and irreparable loss was also found in favour of the plaintiff. Learned trial court concluded that the matter was yet to be adjudicated upon and in case the restraint order was not passed, the parties would be led to multiplicity of litigation.
10. The learned Appellate Court has set-aside the order passed by learned trial Court primarily by concludi