Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devi Bai Shiksha Evam Samaj Kalyan ... vs Dr S P Batra on 15 May, 2025
1 CR-521-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 15th OF MAY, 2025
CIVIL REVISION No. 521 of 2023
DEVI BAI SHIKSHA EVAM SAMAJ KALYAN SAMITI AND OTHERS
Versus
DR S P BATRA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Somyadeep Dwivedi - Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Sumant Mishra- Advocate for respondent no. 1.
Shri D.P.Singh and Shri Surya Pratap Singh- Advocates for respondent
No. 2.
Shri Sanjay Kushwaha- learned GA for respondent No. 5/State.
ORDER
Applicants/defendants have filed this Civil Revision challenging the
order dated 20/6/2023 passed by 11th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gwalior
in RCSA No. 73/2019, whereby, their application under Order VII Rule 11
CPC has been rejected.
2. The respondent no.1/plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and
permanent injunction inter-alia on the ground of irregularities in the
management of defendant's school. The applicants filed an application under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that in
respect of the similar allegations, the Registrar, under the Societies
Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (for brevity "Adhiniyam, 1973") has already
2 CR-521-2023
adjudicated the similar allegations and has rejected the complaint filed by the
plaintiff. They, therefore, submitted that the civil suit on the similar
allegations cannot be entertained and is liable to be rejected. The learned
Trial Court has rejected this application on the ground that there is no
explicit bar to the jurisdiction of civil court in entertaining the suit.
The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that Trial Court erred
in rejecting the application without considering the fact that the Registrar has
already given a finding in respect of similar allegations on the complaint
filed by plaintiff only. He submitted that Registrar is competent to adjudicate
the allegations made in the complaint by plaintiff and the order passed by
him on such complaint is binding upon the plaintiff and he cannot be
allowed to re-agitate the same allegations in the present suit. He placed
reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shri K. Jayaram
and Ors. Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Ors. , reported in
(2022)12 SCC 815 . He also placed reliance upon the Apex Court judgment
in the case of Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava (Dead) by LRs Vs. Union of India
reported in AIR 1988 SC 752 .
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents
supported the impugned order and submitted that the allegations made by the
applicants in their application virtually amounts to invoking principle of res
judicata, which cannot be decided at this stage. He therefore, prays for
dismissal of the civil revision.
4. Before adverting to the factual aspect of this matter, it is
profitable to deal with the judgments cited by learned counsel for the
3 CR-521-2023
applicants. In the case of Shri K. Jayaram (supra) , the Apex Court in para 14
has held as under:-
"14. It is necessary for us to state here that in order to check
multiplicity of proceedings pertaining to the same subject-matter
and more importantly to stop the menace of soliciting inconsistent
orders through different judicial forums by suppressing material
facts either by remaining silent or by making misleading
statements in the pleadings in order to escape the liability of
making a false statement, we are of the view that the parties have
to disclose the details of all legal proceedings and litigations either
past or present concerning any part of the subject-matter of
dispute which is within their knowledge. In case, according to the
parties to the dispute, no legal proceedings or court litigations was
or is pending, they have to mandatorily state so in their pleadings
in order to resolve the dispute between the parties in accordance
with law."
5. Thus, the Apex Court has held that a party approaching to a Court
is under obligation to disclose the details of all legal proceedings and
litigation, either past or present, concerning any part of the subject matter of
dispute. There cannot be any debate on the aforesaid legal aspect. However,
the allegation of suppression of information of any past or present litigation,
is a question of fact which can be decided after trial only by learned Trial
Court. Therefore, the judgment rendered by Apex Court in the case of K.
Jayaram (supra) is of no help to the applicants at this stage.
6. In another judgment of Raja Ram Kuamr Bhargava (supra), the
Apex court has held that if there are two concurrent remedies available, the
party is required to elect one of those remedies. Even, this legal position is
also not open to debate. However, the plaintiff in this case, after having
availed remedy under Adhiniyam of 1973, is entitle to file the present suit or
not, is again a question of fact required to be adjudicated by the Trial Court
4 CR-521-2023
after taking evidence of parties. Thus, the applicants does not get any help
from this judgment also at this stage.
7. Coming to the impugned order passed by learned Trial Court, the
applicants have filed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for
rejection of plaint at the thresh hold on the ground which require factual
adjudication by Trial Court. The issue as to whether the remedy under
Adhiniyam, 1973, was an alternate remedy or not, whether the allegations
made in complaint by plaintiff before Registrar were similar or not, are
required to be adjudicated by Trial Court on the basis of evidence to be led
by parties to the suit. At this stage, the court is required to see the plaint
averments only and from reading plaint averments, it is not found that the
suit is barred by any provision of law. The ground agitated by applicants is
infact their defence which cannot be looked into at this stage. Therefore, in
the considered opinion of this Court, learned Trial Court did not commit any
mistake in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
8. No illegality is found to have been committed by the Trial Court
in rejecting the application. Accordingly, the order passed by learned Trial
Court is upheld. The Civil Revision is accordingly dismissed.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
JPS/-
