Calcutta High Court
Sukhlal Chandanmull (P) Ltd vs Harrow Hall on 10 November, 2025
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
2025:CHC-OS:222-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM AN ORDER PASSED IN
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
APO 27 of 2025 WITH
CS 364 OF 2014
SUKHLAL CHANDANMULL (P) LTD.
Versus
HARROW HALL
Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak
-And-
The Hon'ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi
For the Appellant : Md. Sabyasachi Chaudhury, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shaunak Mukhopadhyay, Adv.
Ms. Anuradha Poddar, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rohit Banerjee, Adv.
Mr.Altamash Alim, Adv.
HEARD ON : 10.11.2025
DELIVERED ON : 10.11.2025
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-
1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated February 12,
2025 passed in IA GA 7 of 2022 in CS 364 of 2014.
2025:CHC-OS:222-DB
2. By the impugned judgment and order, learned Single Judge allowed the
application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
3. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the
appellant filed a suit for eviction against the defendant. In the facts and
circumstances of the present case the defendant was enjoying the tenancy
under the appellant. He draws the attention of the Court to the cause title
of the plaint. He submits that, the defendant is described as a society
registered under the Societies Registration Act represented through its
Secretary. He also draws the attention of the Court to Section 19 of the
West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. He submits that, under
Section 19(1) of the Act of 1961, every society may sue or be sued in the
name of the President, the Secretary or any office bearer authorised by the
Governing Body in that behalf.
4. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the
word "in the name of" as used in Section 19 of the Act 1961 should be
understood to mean that it refers to the office of the President, the
Secretary or any Office Bearer authorised by the Governing Body. He
2025:CHC-OS:222-DB
submits that there is no infirmity in the description of the defendant as
appearing in the cause title of the plaint.
5. In support of the contention that, suit cannot be dismissed under
Section 19 of the Act of 1961 learned senior advocate appearing for the
appellant relies upon (2003) 3 Calcutta High Court Notes 583 (Kalpana
Sarkar vs. Ramkrishna Mission), and an unreported decision of the
learned Single Judge dated August 28, 2023 rendered in C.O. No. 1344 of
2023 (Salkia Vivekananda Sporting Club vs. Bankey Lal Jaiswal).
6. Learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent submits that,
the suit as against the respondent is not maintainable in view of Section 19
of the Act of 1961. He refers to the provisions of Section 19 of the Act of
1961 and contends that the name of the natural person holding the post of
President, the Secretary, or the Office Bearer of the association who is
authorised by the Governing Body of the association to sue or be sued on
behalf of the association, is required to be impleaded as a defendant in the
suit.
7. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant relies upon AIR
1977 Cal 437 (12, I.C. Bose Road Tenants' Association vs. Collector of
2025:CHC-OS:222-DB
Howrah & Ors.) and (2003) 8 Supreme Court Cases 413 (Illachi Devi
(Dead) by Lrs. And Ors. Vs. Jain Society, Protection of Orphans India
and Ors.) in support of the contention that, a society registered under the
Act of 1961 does not enjoy the status of the company. It is not a juristic
person.
8. Learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent relies upon
(2010) 3 Calcutta High Court Notes 755 (Sha-San Infrastructures Pvt.
Ltd. vs. Thakur Corner Buabsayee Kalyan Samity & Ors. and 2009
Supreme Court Cases OnLine Cal 909 (National Council of YMCA's of
India vs. Skippers Textiles Private Ltd.) in support of the contention
that, the suit by or against a registered society without the President or
Secretary or Office Bearer of the society not being named, is not
maintainable.
9. The appellant as the plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the
defendant. In the cause title of the plaint the plaintiff described the
defendant as a society registered under the Societies Registration Act
represented through its Secretary.
2025:CHC-OS:222-DB
10. The defendant/resopndent applied under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 for dismissal of the suit on the ground that, the
suit is barred by law. Section 19 of the Act of 1961 is pressed to contend
that the suit as framed is barred by law.
11. Section 19 of the Act of 1961 is as follows :
"19. Suits and proceedings by and against a society. -
(1) Every society may sue or may be sued in the name of the
President, the Secretary, or any office-bearer authorised by the
Governing Body in this behalf.
(2) No suit or proceeding shall abate by reason of any
vacancy or change in the holder of the office of the President, the
Secretary or any office-bearer authorised under sub-section (1).
(3) Every decree or order against a society in any suit or
proceeding shall be executable against the property of the society
and not against the person or the property of the President, the
Secretary or any office-bearer.
(4) Nothing in sub-section (3) shall exempt the President,
the Secretary or office-bearer of a society from any criminal
liability under this Act or entitle him to claim any contribution from
the property of the society in respect of any fine paid by him on
conviction by a criminal court."
2025:CHC-OS:222-DB
12. Section 19 of the Act of 1961 deals with filing of suits and
proceedings by and against a society. Sub-section (1) of Section 19 allows
every society to sue or to be sued in the name of the President, the
Secretary or any office-bearer authorised by Governing Body in this behalf.
Sub-section (2) of Section 19 clarifies that no suit or proceeding shall abate
by reason of any vacancy or change in the holder of the office of the
President, the Secretary or any office-bearer authorised under sub-section
(1). Sub-section (3) of Section 19 provides that every decree or order
against a society in any suit or proceeding shall be executable against the
property of the society and not against the person or the property of the
President, the Secretary or any office-bearer. Sub-section (4) of Section 19
provides that nothing in sub-section (3) shall exempt the President, the
Secretary or office-bearer of a society from any criminal liability under the
Act of 1961 or entitle him to claim any contribution from the property of
the society in respect of any fine paid by him on conviction by a criminal
court.
13. Sub-sections (1) to (3) of Section 19 of the Act of 1961 governs the field
of civil rights and liability of a society while sub-section (4) deals with the
2025:CHC-OS:222-DB
criminal liability of the post holder and office bearer of a society. A post
holder or an office bearer can sue or be sued for the civil rights and
liabilities of the society while the criminal liability is fastened on the
natural person holding the post of the office.
14. It is trite law that while considering the application under Order VII
Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court is required to
determine on a constructive reading of the plaint, after taking the
statements made in the plaint as true and correct whether the plaint is
barred by law or not, in the event, provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (d) are
pressed in service for rejection of the plaint.
15. In our view, Section 19 of the Act of 1961 does not place an embargo
on a society being sued in its name through the President or the Secretary
or any office-bearer duly authorised in this behalf. In the facts and
circumstances of the present cases, the appellant as the plaintiff described
the society being represented through its Secretary. The Secretary of a
society is one of the office-bearers under Section 19(1) of the Act of 1961
who can be sued as such of the society concerned.
2025:CHC-OS:222-DB
16. In the present case the name of the natural person holding the post of
Secretary is not described in the cause title of the plaint. In our view not
naming the natural person who holds the post of Secretary of the society
concerned is not fatal to the maintainability of the suit. Section 19(1)
mandates the society to be represented either by the President or its
Secretary or its Officer Bearer authorised by the Governing Body in this
behalf. The natural person holding the post of President or Secretary or any
Office Bearer authorised by the Governing Body is not required to be
named. The Governing Body of a society will identify the post, that is,
President or Secretary or any other who would be authorised under Section
19 of the Act of 1961. The Authority to sue or be sued is not granted to a
natural person but to the post of the Society. The personnel occupying the
post concerned may change from time to time. Therefore, the authority
granted by the Governing Body of the Society to sue or be sued is to a post
rather than a natural person.
17. There is nothing placed before us to establish that a natural person
was authorised by the respondent in terms of Section 19 of the Act of 1961
and that the appellant as the plaintiff was aware of such authority.
2025:CHC-OS:222-DB
18. Kalpana Sarkar (supra) was rendered by a coordinate Bench. One of
the issues considered in Kalpana Sarkar (supra) was, whether a suit filed
by a society without being represented by the Secretary of the Society or
any office-bearer therein authorised by the Governing Body in terms of
Section 19(1) of the Act of 1961 was maintainable or not. In such context,
the coordinate Bench interpreted the word "may" used in Section 19 of the
Act of 1961 not to be mandatory so as to preclude the Society to sue in its
own name which holds that the society can either sue in its own name or
can nominate its President and Secretary for suing. It also held that, the
provision of Section 19 of the Act of 1961, being permissive, allowed the
society to sue or be sued in its own name. In such circumstances, it held
that, the suit filed in the name of the society was competent and
maintainable.
19. Salkia Vivekananda Sporting Club (supra) was rendered in the
context of the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 being rejected. Learned Single Judge dismissed the
revisional application after noting that, there was an application under
2025:CHC-OS:222-DB
Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure pending for amendment of
the description of the defendant in such suit.
20. 12, I.C. Bose Road Tenants' Association (supra) was rendered by a
coordinate Bench in the context of a writ petition. The tenant association
challenged a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
by way of a writ petition. In such context, it was held that, the society itself
did not possess any locus standi to maintain a writ petition, as no right of
the society stood infringed.
21. In Sha-San Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), a registered society filed
a suit for declaration of the lawful right of its members to the suit property
and sought declaration with regard to the deed of conveyance as void,
illegal, inoperative and a sham transaction. In the facts and circumstances
of that case, it was found that, the plaint of the suit did not relate to the
invasion of any legal right of the plaintiff association. It went on to hold
that plaint was not presented by the association in compliance with the
provision of Section 19 of the Act of 1961.
2025:CHC-OS:222-DB
22. In National Council of YMCA's of India (supra), the application under
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was allowed on the
basis of Illachi Devi (supra).
23. Illachi Devi (supra) was rendered in the context of an application for
probate or letters of administration of the Will of the deceased. A society
registered under the Societies Registration Act was held not to be eligible to
receive a grant of either probate or letters of administration of the Will of
the deceased, in view of provisions of Section 236 of the Indian Succession
Act.
24. The factual matrix of the present case is akin to Kalpana Sarkar
(supra) which is a binding co-ordinate Bench decision. 12, I.C. Bose Road
Tenants' Association (supra) considers the issue of maintainability of a
writ petition on the anvil of infringement of any legal right of the
association and finds none to be infringed. Similar finding of no invasion of
right of the association is rendered in Sha-San Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
(supra). Illachi Devi (supra) noted the bar to a grant under Section 236 of
the Indian Succession Act, factual matrix in the authorities other than
Kalpana Sarkar (supra) are different to those obtaining in this case.
2025:CHC-OS:222-DB
25. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find there is a
school running at the premises concerned using the name Harrow Hall. We
are informed that there is a society named Harrow Hall, which manages the
school.
26. In view of the discussion above, we set aside the impugned judgment
and order dated February 12, 2025. APO 27 of 2025 is accordingly allowed.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.)
27. I agree.
(MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.)
TR/
