##PAGE1##

2026:UHC:2160 Office Notes,

reports, orders or proceedings SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS No.

and Registrar’s order with Signatures

25.03. WPMS No.539 of 2026

2026 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

Heard Mr. Dileep Chandra Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sahil Mullick, learned counsel for the

respondent.

2. The petitioner is defendant in Civil Suit No.67 of 2021 and aggrieved by the order rejecting application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. against which revision was filed which was also dismissed now. Instant petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging both the order. The order rejecting the application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 was also affirmed by the

Revisional Court.

3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a specific plea was taken in the application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC that the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff is barred by Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, since,

2026:UHC:2160 the plaintiff of the suit in-question is not

authorised to institute the suit.

4. Mr. Sahil Mullick, Learned Counsel for the respondent – plaintiff submits that in para no.1 of the plaint, a specific averment has been made that the plaintiff is the authorised representative of the society, who is authorised by resolution of the Society dated 06.08.2021 which is purely a question of fact and is the subject matter of the trial and on this ground alone plaint cannot be rejected. He also pointed out that the earlier plaintiff of the suit is now replaced by another authorised representative Mr. Gautam Kumar, who is also authorised by the trustee of the trust of

the plaintiff society.

5. This Court is fully agree with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent that “whether the plaintiff of the present suit is authorised representative of the society or not and have a locus to institute the suit is purely a

2026:UHC:2160