IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA th ON THE 7 OF JULY, 2025 CIVIL REVISION No. 646 of 2025 RANVIR SINGH YADAV AND OTHERS Versus MAHANT BALRAMSHARAN SHIKSHA PRASAR SAMITI THROUGH ITS SECRETARY RAJENDRA SINGH KUSHWAH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Prashant Sharma, Advocate for the applicants.

Shri S.S.Kushwah, Government Advocate for respondent No.3/State.

ORDER

This civil revision, under section 115 of CPC, has been filed against the order dated 30/4/2025 passed by II Civil Judge, Junior Division, Seondha, District Datia in Civil Suit No.29A/2021, by which application filed under Order 7 Rule

11, CPC has been rejected.

2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that under section 32 of the M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short, "Adhiniyam"), the suit is barred by law as plaintiffs have alternative remedy of approaching the Registrar under sections 32 and 33 of the Adhiniyam.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND

3. Heard, learned counsel for the applicants.

4. This Court in the case of Nitin Kulkarni and Others VS. Devi Ahilya Bai Ghadge Uchcha Shiksha Samiti and others decided on 18/06/2025 in Civil Revision No.407/2021 has passed the following order:-

“This civil revision, under Section 115 of the CPC, has been filed against the order dated 30.10.2021 passed by XII Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 724/2021 RCA, by which the application filed by the applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.

2. Facts necessary for disposal of present revision, in short, are that respondent/plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The suit was filed for declaration that total number of members of the General Body of plaintiff is 12 i.e. plaintiff Nos. 2 to 9 and defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and except those there are no other members in the General Body. A further declaration was sought that office bearers of plaintiff No.1 are 2 to 7 and there are no other office bearers. It was further prayed that till the election is concluded and till the executive body takes over the charge, all the activities of the Society including management of bank accounts be permitted to continue like before and defendants be restrained from convening meetings and passing resolutions and they may also be restrained from interfering with management of college and school run by the plaintiffs.

3. The revisionist filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 seeking dismissal of suit on the ground that plaintiff has efficacious remedy to approach the Registrar, Firms and Societies under Section 32 of the M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short, "Adhiniyam"). The trial court by the impugned order has rejected the said application.

4. Challenging the order passed by the trial court, it is submitted by counsel for applicant that since the Registrar, Firms and Societies is competent to conduct enquiry under Section 32 of the Adhiniyam, therefore the suit is barred. 5. Per contra, revision is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondent/plaintiff.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. It is fairly conceded by counsel for applicant that there is no provision under the Adhiniyam thereby excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. However, it was submitted that although there may not be any Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND express provision thereby excluding the jurisdiction of Civil Court, but the jurisdiction of Civil Court can be impliedly inferred as barred and relied upon the judgment passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Keshav Choubey vs. Sarvodaya Samiti, 1989 (1) MPWN Note

14.

8. So far as the judgment passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Keshav Choubey (supra) is concerned, no discussion has been made except referring to Section 9 of the CPC. It is merely provided that since the Adhiniyam provides for forum for deciding such dispute and appeal is also provided, therefore impliedly the jurisd