The determination of maintainability should be reached through full trial and not solely based on interlocutory objections; jurisdiction challenges must be substantiated during the merits of the case.

JUDGMENT

Inter se disputes between the members of a Society, namely, Space Engineers Welfare Society, registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literacy Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act (Act 12 of 1955), have given rise to three suits, viz, O.S. No. 366/09, O.S. No. 444/09 and O.S. No. 891/08 on the file of the Additional Munsiff Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. O.S. No : 366/09 was filed by two persons claiming to be erstwhile members of the above society seeking for a declaration that the defendants in that suit who held and exercised official position in the management of the society do not possess core membership in such society as required under its bye laws, and for other reliefs. O.S. No : 444/09 was filed by five persons, all of them claiming to be the founder members of the society, and in their suit they canvassed for a declaration that suspension of the first plaintiff and also expulsion of other plaintiffs from the membership of the first defendant society are illegal and abinitio void, and for other reliefs. The defendants in that suit were the society and also some others who are stated to be in management of the such society as its office bearers. O.S. No : 891/08 was filed by the plaintiffs therein representing the aforesaid society seeking for a declaration that a general body meeting purported to have been held by the defendants in that suit on a particular date was not binding on the plaintiffs and its members, and also, for injunction and other reliefs.

3. The respective defendants in the three suits entering appearance filed interlocutory applications in which, they raised preliminary objections questioning the entertainability of the suits against them. In O.S. No :444/09 the defendants therein raised objections that a decision rendered in a previous suit in which some of the plaintiffs and defendants were parties barred the trial of the present suit under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure . It was further contended by the defendants that the reliefs canvassed, most of them, fall within the sweep of Section 25 of the Act, and the disputes raised thereof could be entertained only by the competent Court, the District Court, on presentation of a proper petition with sufficient grounds thereof, and not by the Munsiff Court. A further contention was also taken that the suit filed in individual capacity by the plaintiffs was not entertainable and it should have been presented in a representative capacity seeking permission of the Court as envisaged under Order 1 Rule 8 of the . Leave of the Court was not obtained to institute the suit was yet another ground canvassed by the defendants to impeach the maintainability of the suit. Similarly, the defendants in O.S. No : 366/09 resisted that suit setting forth a challenge over its maintainability contending that such defendants have been functioning as receivers appointed by the Court and, thus, discharging their functions as officer bearers of the Society. Suit filed without obtaining leave of the Court which appointed the aforesaid defendants as receivers was canvassed by them to assail its maintainability. So far as the suit numbered as O.S. No : 891/08 its entertainability was challenged by the defendants contending that it has been instituted without convening a general body of the Society and getting approval from such body by the majority of the members attending that meeting. According to them a suit of this nature cannot be instituted and prosecuted without sanction from general body of the Society.

4. The learned Munsiff after considering the interlocutory applications, hearing the counsel on both sides, disposed them under a common order. Under the aforesaid common order the suit numbered as O.S. No : 444/09 was held to be not maintainable upholding the contentions raised by the defendants though not in its entirety but accepting the challenges that some of the reliefs canvassed are barred, as interdicted by Section 25 of the Ac