Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1325

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Siddhartha Sah, J
ABHISHEK JAIN – Appellant
Versus
MS VIDHYA PUSHP ACADEMY – Respondent
CLR 46 / 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Siddharth Jain
For the Respondents: Shailabh Pandey

The court reaffirmed that under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only plaint averments are considered; disputes about authority to sue are factual and cannot be resolved at the rejection stage, and undervaluation requires an opportunity to cure before rejection.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 115 and Order VII Rule 11 - Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Section 6 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - For deciding application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only averments in plaint are germane; pleas taken by defendant in written statement are wholly irrelevant - Objections regarding authority of plaintiff to institute suit on behalf of society involve disputed questions of fact requiring evidence and cannot be decided at stage of rejection of plaint - Bar under law must be apparent from face of plaint; no amount of evidence can be looked into - Rejection of plaint on ground of undervaluation or insufficient court fee is not automatic; court must first direct plaintiff to correct valuation or pay deficient fee and only upon non-compliance can plaint be rejected - No jurisdictional error found in trial court’s order rejecting application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, hence civil revision under Section 115 CPC dismissed - However, liberty granted to defendant to raise plea regarding tenability as preliminary issue, to be decided within two months.

(B)

Facts of the case:
A society was founded by family members. Disputes arose between the revisionist and the respondent (plaintiff). The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the revisionist from interfering in the functioning of the society. The revisionist filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC contending that the plaint disclosed no cause of action, that the plaintiff had no authority to institute the suit, that the suit was barred under the Societies Registration Act and the Specific Relief Act, and that the suit was undervalued with insufficient court fee. The trial court rejected the application, holding that the objections involved disputed questions of fact and could not be decided at that stage. Aggrieved, the revisionist filed the present civil revision under Section 115 CPC.

(C)

Issues: (i) Whether the trial court committed a jurisdictional error in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC? (ii) Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected on grounds of lack of authority, bar under law, or undervaluation?

(D)

Findings of Court:
The trial court correctly considered only the averments in the plaint, as required by settled law. The objection regarding authority to sue raised disputed questions of fact not amenable to summary rejection. No bar under the Societies Registration Act or Specific Relief Act was ex facie apparent from the plaint. Regarding undervaluation, the plaintiff had not been given an opportunity to correct the valuation or pay deficient court fee; thus rejection on that ground was premature. The revisionist failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. (E)

Ratio Decidendi: For rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court must look only at the plaint averments and the documents filed therewith. If the objections raised by the defendant involve disputed questions of fact requiring evidence, the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold. A suit is barred under clause (d) only if the bar is apparent from the plaint itself, without any addition or subtraction. Undervaluation or deficit court fee is a curable defect; rejection can only follow after the plaintiff fails to comply with a court direction to rectify. (F)

Result: Civil revision dismissed. The trial court is directed to frame a preliminary issue regarding tenability of the suit if the defendant raises such plea in the written statement, and decide it within two months from the date of framing.

Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. (oral)

The present revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) has been preferred by the defendant/revisionist against the order dated 06.03.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haldwani, District Nainital in Civil Suit No.71 of 2025 titled as “Vidhya Pushp Academy vs. Abhishek Jain”, by which the Applicant No.15C under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, filed by the defendant/revisionist was rejected.

2. The relevant facts of the case as stated in this revision leading to filing of this civil revision are as follows:

(i) A society was founded by the Late Shri Chetan Lal Jain (grand-father), Late Smt. Shanti Devi (grand- mother) & Late Shri Sunil Kumar Jain (father) of the Revisionist and the respondent in the year 1999.

(ii) Later after the demise of certain members the father of the Revisionist and respondent (Late Shri Sunil Kumr Jain) became the President, the respondent as the Vice-President, the Revisionist as the Secretary, Smt. Rekha Jain (mother of Revisionist & respondent) as Treasurer, Smt. Anushika Jain (wife of the respondent) as a member, Smt. Shanti Devi Jain (Grandmother of Revisionist & respondent) as member and Smt. Nidhi Jain (wife of Revisionist) as a member.

(iii) Looking to the conduct of the respondent, the Revisionist, along with other members of the society, with a majority removed the respondent from the said society on 16.10.2025, and therefore, since then, the respondent has not been a part and parcel of the society.

(iv) Therefore, to further achieve his ulterior motives & illegal gains the respondent filed Civil Suit No. 71 of 2025 seeking permanent injunction restraining the Revisionist from interference in the functioning of the respondent and with additional prayers.

(v) The Revisionist filed an application no 15C under Order VII Rule 11 on the ground that the respondent had no authority to file the suit, nor was the suit maintainable as well as being undervalued.

(vi) The respondent filed the reply to the said application on 28.01.2026.

(vii) The trial court i.e. the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haldwani, District Nainital heard the learned counsel for the parties on the application preferred by the defendant/revisionist under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and after considering the said application and the objections raised on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent against the same rejected the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC vide impugned order dated 06.03.2026.

3. Aggrieved against the said order dated 06.03.2026, the present Civil Revision has been preferred on behalf of the defendant/revisionist. While adverting to the factual narration as made in the affidavit in support of the revision, learned counsel for the defendant/revisionist assailed the impugned order on the premise that the plaintiff through Mr. Akshat Jain never have the authority to institute the suit on behalf of the plaintiff/society for the reason that (1) there was no resolution to institute the suit, (2) Mr. Akshat Jain had already been removed from the plaintiff/society.

4. The next submission made by the learned counsel for the defendant/revisionist is that there was no cause of action with the plaintiff since he had already been removed from the plaintiff/society, hence in the absence of cause of action, his case was covered by the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC.

5. He further made submissions that Mr. Akshat Jain had no right to institute the suit against Mr. Abhishek Jain, the defendant/revisionist in private capacity. It was next canvassed by Mr. Siddharth Jain, learned counsel for the defendant/revisionist, his case is covered by the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (a) CPC for the reasons that Mr. Akshat Jain was not having locus standi to file the suit because as per Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, ‘Every society registered under this Act may sue or be sued in the name of the president, chairman, or principal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1325

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHANDSiddhartha Sah, JABHISHEK JAIN – AppellantVersusMS VIDHYA PUSHP ACADEMY – RespondentCLR 46 / 2026

The court reaffirmed that under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only plaint averments are considered; disputes about authority to sue are factual and cannot be resolved at the rejection stage, and undervaluation requires an opportunity to cure before rejection.

Cases Referred (2)

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Siddhartha Sah, J
ABHISHEK JAIN – Appellant
Versus
MS VIDHYA PUSHP ACADEMY – Respondent
CLR 46 / 2026