The single judge bench of Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra of the Patna High Court in the case of Buddhist Thai Bharat Society Vs Shri Shashi Bhushan held that the object of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. is to keep out Courts irresponsible lawsuits and in case court is prima facie persuaded of the view that the suit is an abuse of the process of the court, in the sense that it is bogus and irresponsible litigation, the jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. can be exercised.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the respondents filed the title suit under Order 1 Rule 8 read with Section 92 of C.P.C. seeking perpetual injunction against the Petitioner. It was filed on the ground that the Petitioner performing activities that are contrary to its aim and objectives and its constitution and tenure of Governing body of the defendant-society is permanent. Plaintiff No. 1 is a member of the defendant society's governing body, and the defendant society's notice holding a general meeting to elect the society's governing body is in violation of the defendant society's bylaws. Thereafter, the written statement was filed in which it was alleged that the suit is not maintainable in the eyes of the law as there exists no cause of action.
The petitioner society preferred an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint stating that the suit preferred by respondents under Section 92 of C.P.C. is not tenable in law which was rejected by the trial court and results into the present application before the Hon’ble High Court.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the suit is barred under Section 4 (5) of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950, and is not maintainable as non-members cannot take any action. Furthermore, there exists no cause of action. It was also submitted that no documents were produced by the plaintiff to show where the cause of action arises. At last, it was submitted that the plaintiffs have not used their alternative remedy as available in Rules 12 and 13 of the Bihar Societies Registration Rules, 1965.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied upon the judgments titled T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal and Anr, N.D.M.C. Vs. Satish Chand Ramisetty, Venkatanna & Another Vs. Naryam Jamal Saheb and Others, and Rajendra Bajoria and Others Vs. Hemant Kumar Jalan and Others.
Contentions of the Respondents
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the plaintiff is a member of the society and they have an interest in the welfare of the society and sufficient cause of action disclosed in the plaint. Furthermore, it was submitted that the trial court was right in rejecting the petition of the petitioner.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the real purpose of Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. is to prevent irresponsible suits from being filed in court. If the court is prima facie convinced that the suit is an abuse of the court's process in the sense that it is an erroneous and irresponsible lawsuit, the jurisdiction provided by Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. may be used.
It was noted that the term "cause of action" often refers to a set of circumstances or facts that gives one party the right to file a suit or other legal proceeding; it also refers to a factual condition that gives another party the right to seek redress in court.
The Hon’ble court relied upon the judgments titled I.T.C. Co. Limited Vs. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Bhagirath Prasad Singh Vs. Ram Narayan Rai & Anr., Ramisetty Venkatanna and Another Vs. Naryam Jamal Saheb and Others, Rajendra Bajoria and Others Vs. Hemant Kumar Jalan and Others, Rajasthan High Court Advocates’ Assn. V. Union of India, Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society V. Ponniamman Educational Trust, A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.P. Agencies, and A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.P. Agencies.
It was furthermore noted that the plaintiff merely seeks adjudication of the affairs of the society and governing council so as to ensure proper administration of the society created for a charitable purpose.
Based on these considerations, the hon’ble court was of the view that the plaint sets out the requisite material facts that disclose a cause of action and gives rise to triable issues and the trial court rightly rejected the petition of the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of C.P.C.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the Hon’ble Court dismissed the application.
Case Title: Buddhist Thai Bharat Society Vs Shri Shashi Bhushan
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra
Case No.: CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.982 of 2018
Advocates for the Petitioners: Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, Advocate Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocate Mr. Vivek Anand, Advocate
Advocates for the Respondents: Mr. Md. Javed Jafar Khan, Advocate Mr. Kumar Gangesh Gunju, Advocate Mr. Raja Ram Mishra, Advocate
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
