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