Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ranvir Singh Yadav vs Mahant Balramsharan Shiksha Prasar … on 7 July, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14417
1 C.R. No. 646 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 7th OF JULY, 2025
CIVIL REVISION No. 646 of 2025
RANVIR SINGH YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
MAHANT BALRAMSHARAN SHIKSHA PRASAR SAMITI THROUGH
ITS SECRETARY RAJENDRA SINGH KUSHWAH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Sharma, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri S.S.Kushwah, Government Advocate for respondent No.3/State.
ORDER
This civil revision, under section 115 of CPC, has been filed against the
order dated 30/4/2025 passed by II Civil Judge, Junior Division, Seondha, District
Datia in Civil Suit No.29A/2021, by which application filed under Order 7 Rule
11, CPC has been rejected.
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that under section 32 of the M.P.
Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short, “Adhiniyam”), the suit is
barred by law as plaintiffs have alternative remedy of approaching the Registrar
under sections 32 and 33 of the Adhiniyam.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 7/15/2025
6:48:00 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14417
2 C.R. No. 646 of 2025
3. Heard, learned counsel for the applicants.
4. This Court in the case of Nitin Kulkarni and Others VS. Devi Ahilya
Bai Ghadge Uchcha Shiksha Samiti and others decided on 18/06/2025 in
Civil Revision No.407/2021 has passed the following order:-
“This civil revision, under Section 115 of the CPC, has been filed
against the order dated 30.10.2021 passed by XII Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 724/2021 RCA, by which the
application filed by the applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been
rejected.
2. Facts necessary for disposal of present revision, in short, are that
respondent/plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent
injunction. The suit was filed for declaration that total number of
members of the General Body of plaintiff is 12 i.e. plaintiff Nos. 2 to 9
and defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and except those there are no other members in
the General Body. A further declaration was sought that office bearers of
plaintiff No.1 are 2 to 7 and there are no other office bearers. It was
further prayed that till the election is concluded and till the executive
body takes over the charge, all the activities of the Society including
management of bank accounts be permitted to continue like before and
defendants be restrained from convening meetings and passing resolutions
and they may also be restrained from interfering with management of
college and school run by the plaintiffs.
3. The revisionist filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 seeking
dismissal of suit on the ground that plaintiff has efficacious remedy to
approach the Registrar, Firms and Societies under Section 32 of the M.P.
Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short, “Adhiniyam”). The
trial court by the impugned order has rejected the said application.
4. Challenging the order passed by the trial court, it is submitted by
counsel for applicant that since the Registrar, Firms and Societies is
competent to conduct enquiry under Section 32 of the Adhiniyam,
therefore the suit is barred.
5. Per contra, revision is vehemently opposed by counsel for
respondent/plaintiff.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is fairly conceded by counsel for applicant that there is no provision
under the Adhiniyam thereby excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil
Court. However, it was submitted that although there may not be anySignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 7/15/2025
6:48:00 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:144173 C.R. No. 646 of 2025
express provision thereby excluding the jurisdiction of Civil Court, but
the jurisdiction of Civil Court can be impliedly inferred as barred and
relied upon the judgment passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Keshav Choubey vs. Sarvodaya Samiti, 1989 (1) MPWN Note
14.
8. So far as the judgment passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Keshav Choubey (supra) is concerned, no discussion has been
made except referring to Section 9 of the CPC. It is merely provided that
since the Adhiniyam provides for forum for deciding such dispute and
appeal is also provided, therefore impliedly the jurisdiction of Civil Court
is barred.
9. Now the question for consideration is as to whether the jurisdiction of
Civil Court has to be inferred as impliedly barred because forum of appeal
against order of Registrar is provided under the Adhiniyam, or not ?
10. Section 9 of CPC reads as under:-
9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred .-
The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have
jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which
their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.
Explanation I .-A suit in which the right to property or to an office
is contested is a suit of a civil nature, notwithstanding that such
right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to
religious rites or ceremonies.
Explanation II .-For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial
whether or not any fees are attached to the office referred to in
Explanation I or whether or not such office is attached to a
particular place.
11. Sections 22, 23 and 32 of the Adhiniyam read as under:-
22. Suit by and against societies. – Every society may sue
or be sued in the name of the President or Chairman or Principal
Secretary or the trustees, as shall be determined by the regulations
of the society and in default of such determination, in the name of
such person as shall be appointed by the governing body for the
occasion
Provided that it shall be competent for any person having a
claim or demand against the society to sue the President or
Chairman or Principal Secretary or the trustee thereof, if onSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 7/15/2025
6:48:00 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:144174 C.R. No. 646 of 2025
application to the governing body some other officer or person be
not nominated to be the defendant.
23. Suit not to abate. – No suit or proceeding in any Civil Court
shall abate or discontinue by reason of the person by or against
whom such suit or proceedings shall have been brought or
continued, dying or ceasing to fill the character in the name
whereof he shall have sued or been sued, but the same suit or
proceeding shall be continued in the name of or against the
successor of such person.
32. Enquiry and settlement of disputes.
(1)The Registrar may, on his own motion or on an application
made under sub-section (2) either by himself or by a person
authorised by him, by order in writing, hold an enquiry into the
constitution, working and financial conditions of a society.
(2)An enquiry of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) shall be
held on the application together with an affidavit in support of its
contents of-
(a) a majority of the members of the governing body of the
society; or
(b) not less than one-third of the total number of members of
the society.
(3) The Registrar or the person authorised by him under sub-
section (1) shall for the purpose of an enquiry under this section
have the following powers, namely :-
(a) he shall at all times have free access to the books,
accounts, documents, securities, cash and other properties
belonging to, or in the custody of, the society and may summon
any person in possession, or responsible for the custody of any
such books, accounts, documents, securities, cash or other
properties to produce the same, if they relate to the head office of
the society at any place at the headquarter thereof and if they relate
to any branch of the society, at any place in the town wherein such
branch thereof is located or in his own office;
(b) he may summon any person who he has reason to believe
has knowledge of any of the affairs of the society to appear beforeSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 7/15/2025
6:48:00 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:144175 C.R. No. 646 of 2025
him at any place at the headquarters of the society or any branch
thereof or in his own office and may examine such person on oath;
and
(c)(i) he may notwithstanding any regulation or bye-laws
specifying the period of notice for a general meeting of the society,
require the officers of the society to call a general meeting of the
society at such time at the head office of the society or at any other
place at the headquarter of the society and to determine such
matters as may be directed by him and where the officers of the
society refuse or fail to call such a meeting, he shall have power to
call it himself;
(ii)any meeting called under sub-clause (i) shall have all the
powers of a general meeting called under the regulations or bye-
laws of the society and its proceedings shall be regulated by such
bye-laws.
(4) When an enquiry is made under this section the Registrar shall
communicate the result of the enquiry to the society and may issue
appropriate directions to the society, which shall be binding on all
parties concerned.
10. The Supreme Court in the case of Dhulabhai And Others vs The
State Of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1969 SC 78, has held as
under (para 32).
32. Neither of the two cases of Firm of Illuri Subayya(1) or
Kamla Mills(2) can be said to run counter to the series of cases
earlier noticed. The result of this inquiry into the diverse views
expressed in this Court may be stated as follows :-
(1) Where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the
special tribunals the Civil Courts’ jurisdiction must be held to be
excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the Civil Courts
would normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does not
exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act
have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not
acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial
procedure.
(2) Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the
court, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find
the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may beSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 7/15/2025
6:48:00 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:144176 C.R. No. 646 of 2025
relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the civil
court.
Where there is no express exclusion the examination of the
remedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the
intendment becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may
be decisive. In the latter case it is necessary to see if the statute
creates a special right or a liability and provides for the
determination of the right or liability and further lays down that
all ques- tions about the said right and liability shall be
determined by the tribunals so constituted, and whether remedies
normally associated with actions in Civil Courts are prescribed by
the said statute or not.
(3) Challenge to the provisions of the particular Act as ultra
vires cannot be brought before Tribunals constituted under that
Act. Even the High Court cannot go into that question on a
revision or reference from the decision of the Tribunals.
(4) When a provision is already declared unconstitutional.
or the constitutionality of any provision is to be challenged, a suit
is open. A writ of certiorari may include a direction for refund if
the claim is clearly within the time prescribed by the Limitation
Act but it is not a compulsory remedy to replace a suit.
(5) Where the particular Act contains no machinery for
refund’ of tax collected in excess of constitutional limits or
illegally collected a suit lies.
(6) Questions of the correctness of the assessment apart
from its constitutionality are for. the decision of the authorities
and a civil suit does not lie if the orders of the authorities are
declared to be final or there is an express prohibition in the
particular Act. In either case the scheme of the particular Act
must be examined because it is a relevant enquiry.
(7) An exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not
readily to be inferred unless the conditions above set down apply.
11. The aforesaid judgment passed by Supreme Court has also been relied
upon by the Supreme Court in the case of M. Hariharasudhan vs R.
Karmegam, decided on 17th October 2019 in Civil Appeal No. 8069 of
2019.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 7/15/2025
6:48:00 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14417
7 C.R. No. 646 of 2025
12. The Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Rejak Laskar vs Mafizur
Rahman decided on 20.12.2024 in Civil Appeal No. 14805 of 2024 has
held as under:-
52.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant is right in his
submission that the jurisdiction of the civil court under Section
154(1)(e) would be barred only if an imperfect partition suit is
otherwise maintainable under Section 97. He is right in his
submission that to maintain a suit for imperfect partition under
Section 97, the appellant has to fulfill two conditions stipulated
therein.
a. First, the person seeking partition should be in actual
possession of the property in respect of which he seeks
partition, and;
b. Secondly, the co-sharers may not be ready and willing to give
their consent and if the person seeking partition is not in actual
possession then no other remedy is available to him except to
go before the civil court and seek partition on the basis of his
own title as a co-owner.
53.A reference in this connection may be made to a decision of the
Calcutta High Court in Musstt. Rukeya Banu & Ors. v. Musstt.
Nazira Banu & Ors. reported in AIR 1928 Cal 130, where it was
pointed out that a partition, whether perfect or imperfect, of revenue-
paying properties must be made by the Revenue authorities. This
follows from a conjoint reading of Sections 96 and 154(1)(e) of the
Regulation, 1886 respectively. However, the jurisdiction of the civil
court to determine the right of the parties to the property in dispute
as well as shares to which they are entitled has not been taken away
by the Regulation in question, and it is for the civil court to decide
whether the property is or is not liable to partition. The same view
applies to other clauses of Section 154. The parties to a suit are
entitled to obtain a declaration from the civil court that they have got
the right to obtain from the revenue authorities a separation and
allotment of their shares in the estate according to their proportionate
rights. It is the civil court which will decide whether the plaintiff is
entitled to seek partition and to what extent. If it is found by the
court that revenue paying properties have to be partitioned among
the parties, the court may declare the share of each of the parties and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 7/15/2025
6:48:00 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14417
8 C.R. No. 646 of 2025
leave them to go to the revenue authorities for making the necessary
performance. The relevant observations from the said decision are
reproduced hereinbelow:
“Lastly, the question of jurisdiction under the Assam Land
Revenue Regulation may be dealt with. It is quite true that
under sec. 154(1)(e) read with sec. 96 of the Act, partition,
whether perfect or imperfect, of revenue-paying properties
must be made by the revenue authorities. But the jurisdiction
of the Civil Court to determine the rights of the parties to the
property in dispute as well as the shares to which they are
entitled have not been taken away by the regulation in
question and the Civil Court must also decide whether the
property is liable to partition or not; as in this case, whether
there is a valid wakf which prevents the parties from seeking a
partition of the property. The Plaintiff as well as the appealing
Defendants are entitled to obtain a declaration from the Civil
Court that they have got the right to obtain from the revenue
authorities a separation and allotment of their shares in the
estate according to their proportionate rights. It is further
pointed out by the Appellants that all the properties in suit are
not revenue-paying properties. These must be partitioned by
the Civil Court. It is also alleged that the parties are in
possession of separate parcels of lands being only shares in
certain revenue-paying estates. These do not fall within the
provisions of the Assam Regulation. The moveable properties
should also be partitioned and the Court should also give an
opportunity to the Plaintiff for finding out whether there are
any other properties which are capable of being partitioned.
The actual partition of revenue-paying estates must
necessarily be made according to the provisions of the Assam
Land Revenue Regulation.”
(Emphasis supplied)
54.The position of law on the issue has been explained by the High
Court of Gauhati itself in the case of Thanda Bala Choudhury and
Anr. v. Birendra Kumar Choudhury reported in 2002 SCC
OnLine Gau 26 wherein the issue was regarding the jurisdiction of
civil courts for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit
property when the case for perfect partition had already been
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 7/15/2025
6:48:00 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14417
9 C.R. No. 646 of 2025
disposed of by the Deputy Commissioner. The Court therein while
elaborating on of the Regulation, 1886, held the following:
a. First, in cases where the distribution of land has been decided
by way of partition, civil courts have the jurisdiction to
adjudicate upon the title to the land. This is in consonance with
various rulings that conclude that Section 154 cannot deprive a
man of his title to the land. The Court held that mere partition of
property in dispute by the Revenue authorities does not confer
any title on them and it is open to civil courts to determine the
right of the parties to the property.
b. Secondly, civil courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over matters
of perfect partition; only revenue courts are vested with the
power to decide on the same. The legal position pursuant to
Section 154 as well as Section 62 is that no bar exists over civil
courts to declare the rights over a suit property. Additionally,
Section 62 specifically vests a right upon parties to approach
civil courts for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit
property. The relevant paragraphs from the said decision are
reproduced hereinbelow:
“7. A catena of judicial decisions has been referred by Mr.
Katakey to drive home his submission. In Dandiram Nath
and v. Mihiram Nath Chamua decided on 13.11.1953
reported in 1 Unreported cases (Assam) 255 this Court
speaking through Justice Sarjoo Prasad, C.J, categorically
ruled that Section 154 cannot deprive a man of his title to
the land. The mere fact that the lands have been distributed
or revenue allotted will not confer any title on them and it
would be always to the Civil Court to adjudicate upon the
question of title irrespective of the provisions of Section 154.
Dealing with a case where the Plaintiffs instituted suit for
declaration of title and confirmation of possession or in the
alternative recovery of possession, the Court in paragraph-3
of the said ruling observed as follows:-
“3. On behalf of the appellants, however, it has been
argued that Section 154(1)(f) of the Assam Land and
Revenue Regulation is a bar to the institution of the
suit. Section 154 says that except where otherwise
expressly provided in this Regulation or in RulesSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 7/15/2025
6:48:00 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1441710 C.R. No. 646 of 2025
framed thereunder, no Civil Court shall exercise
jurisdiction in any of the matters enumerated in the
various clauses of the section, one of them being Clause
(f) which relates to the distribution of land or the
allotment of the revenue on partition. The distribution
of land or the allotment of the revenue may very well
stand, but I do not see how Section 154 can deprive a
man of his title to the land. If the defendants had no title
thereto, then the mere fact that the lands have been
distributed or revenue allotted, will not confer any title
on them, and it would be always open to the Civil Court
to adjudicate upon the question of title irrespective of
the provisions of Section 154. A reference in this
connection may be made to a decision of the Calcutta
High Court in “Mt. Rukeya Banu and Ors. v. Mt. Nazira
Banu and Ors. (1928 Cal. 130) where it was pointed
out that a partition, whether perfect or imperfect, of
revenue-paying properties must be made by the
Revenue authorities. This follows from a perusal of
Section 96 with Section 154(1)(e) of the Assam Land
and Revenue Regulation. But the jurisdiction of the
Civil Court to determine the right of the parties to the
property in dispute as well as shares to which they are
entitled has not been taken away by the Regulation in
question, and it is for the Civil Court to decide whether
the property is or is not liable to partition. The same
view applies to other clauses of Section 154. In the
circumstances, I find no substance in the point urged by
the learned counsel for the appellant. In my opinion,
the appeal is without any merit and must be dismissed
with costs and the decision of the Court of Appeal
below should be maintained.”
8. In the case of “The State of Assam v. Sifat Ali and Ors.”
reported in AIR 1967 Assam & Nagaland Page-3, a Division
Bench of this Court also held that Section 154(1)(a) of the
Regulation does not debar the civil court from entertaining
the suit based on title to property.
xxx xxx xxx
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 7/15/2025
6:48:00 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14417
11 C.R. No. 646 of 2025
19. Keeping in view the above cited authorities relating to
the jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 154 of the
Regulation and also on ordinary reading of the provisions of
Section 154 as well as Section 62 which is also a saving
clause as noted above, it can be safely said that the legal
position is well settled that Civil Court has the jurisdiction to
agitate upon the matter relating to title over the property. It
is correct that if any claim is made as regards perfect
partition, no Civil Court shall exercise its jurisdiction as
envisaged under Section 154(1)(d) of the Regulation. Section
154 of the Regulation provides that except where otherwise
expressly provided in this Regulation or in Rule framed
thereunder, no civil court shall exercise the jurisdiction in
any matter mentioned in the various clauses under the
Section including Clause (d) which relates to claim of person
to perfect partition. Revenue Court has been vested with the
power to effect the partition whether perfect or imperfect, of
the revenue paying properties. But at the same time,
jurisdiction of the Civil Court to determine the right of the
parties to the properties in dispute as well as the shares of
which they are entitled to has not been taken away by the
Regulation. In the instant case though the matter was earlier
agitated before the Revenue Court for effecting perfect
partition, the Petitioners, having failed to get adequate
relief, approached the Civil Court by filing suit in question
for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land.
In such premises I do not find any reason how this Section
154 can debar the Petitioners claiming to the title of the land
in question from approaching the Civil Court. Section 62
also clearly vests a right upon the person to prefer a suit to
the Civil Court for declaration of his right to any property.
Therefore, I find sufficient force in the submission of the
learned counsel for the Petitioner and accordingly, I am
disinclined to approve the views expressed by the learned
Civil Judge in the Impugned orders, I am of the considered
view that the Civil Court is the absolute authority to
adjudicate a dispute relating to the title and interest over the
immovable property.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 7/15/2025
6:48:00 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14417
12 C.R. No. 646 of 2025
55.The position of law with respect to the jurisdiction of civil courts
to try suits based on title to property has also been explained by the
Gauhati High Court in the decision rendered in the case of Ka Trily
Tariang v. U. Resdrikson Lyngdoh and Ors. reported in (1984) 2
G.L.R. 8. The High Court inter alia observed that the jurisdiction
conferred upon Revenue authority does not prevent the civil court
from adjudicating upon the right to an asset when entitlement is
claimed. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow:
“[…] In that case as well, the Commissioner acting under
Rule 26 of the Settlement Rules had pass an order but the
Plaintiffs sued the State of Assam claiming his title to the
property. The plea of bar under Section 154(1)(a) was taken.
Their Lordships held that the provision did not preclude the
civil court to entertain suits based on title to the property.
Declaration of title to immovable property is out of bound
for the Revenue court.
It can determine many controversies including those covered
by clauses (a) to (m) of Section 154(1) of the Regulation but
the civil court is the court competent to decide right, title and
interest to immovable property. A civil court cannot only
declare title to the property but it can also adjudicate that the
Revenue Officer or the courts acted beyond their jurisdiction
resulting in a failure of justice. In Dinesh Chandra Sarkar v.
Harendra Biswas AIR 1972 Gau. 81, this Court has held that
suit for declaration of right, title and interest is not barred by
Section 154(1) of the Regulation. Dealing with the provisions
of Section 154 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation it
was held that the matters within the jurisdiction of the
Revenue authorities or courts could be decided by them but
no such decision of a revenue court could take away the
jurisdiction of a civil courts, when a person having a right to
an asset claimed entitlement to it and sought declaration of
his right in the civil court notwithstanding the provisions
contained in Section 154(1)(a) of the Regulation.”
(Emphasis supplied)
56.Further, in the decisions rendered in the Daulatram Lakhani v.
State of Assam and Ors. reported in 1989 (1) G.L.J. 37 and Gauri
Shankar Agarwalla v. Madanlal Agarwalla and Ors. reported in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 7/15/2025
6:48:00 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14417
13 C.R. No. 646 of 2025
2010 SCC OnLine Gau 465, the High Court of Gauhati itself has
clarified that the bar created by Section 154(1) does not preclude
suits based on title to the property from being within the jurisdiction
of civil courts”
13. The Supreme Court in the case of Premier Automobiles Ltd. v.
Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke reported in AIR 1975 SC 2238, has
observed that where industrial dispute is for the purpose of enforcing any
right, obligation or liability under the general law or the common law and
not a right, obligation or liability created under the Act, then alternative
forums are there giving an election to the suitor to choose his remedy for
either moving the machinery under the Act or to approach the Civil
Court.
14. Thus, it is clear that where the exclusion of jurisdiction is contended
to be implied, then the scheme of the Act should be analysed to determine
the adequacy of the remedies and also whether the Act provides that all
rights and liabilities arising out of it shall be determined by the Tribunal
constituted under the concerned Act.
15. As already pointed out, there is no specific provision in the
Adhiniyam thereby excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Section
22 of the Adhiniyam provides that society can sue and can be sued;
Section 23 provides that no suit or proceeding in any Civil Court shall
abate or discontinue by reason of the person by or against whom such suit
or proceeding shall have been brought or continued dying or ceasing to
fill the character in the name whereof he shall have sued or been sued, but
the same suit or proceeding shall be continued in the name of or against
the successor of such person. If the intention of the legislature was to
exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, then would not have
incorporated sections 22 and 23 in the Adhiniyam. Word “suit” means
determination of rights and cannot be equated with word “enquiry” as
mentioned in section 32 of the Adhiniyam.
16. The Supreme Court in the case of Nagri Pracharini Sabha Vs. Vth
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi and Others reported
in 1990 (4) JT 160, has held that civil suit challenging election of
managing committee and for rendition of accounts is not barred.
17. Thus, it is clear that exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Court cannot be
inferred merely because Section 32 provides for enquiry and settlement ofSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 7/15/2025
6:48:00 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1441714 C.R. No. 646 of 2025
dispute and Section 40 of the Adhiniyam provides for appeal against
order made by Registrar.
18. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that the
trial court did not commit any mistake by rejecting the application filed
by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
19. Revision fails and is, hereby, dismissed.”
5. Further, whether plaintiffs are the office bearers or not cannot be decided
at the stage of Order 7 Rule 11, CPC.
6. Thus, it is clear that neither there is any express nor implied bar on the
jurisdiction of Civil Court in the light of section 32 of the Adhiniyam.
7. Accordingly, the civil revision fails and is, hereby, dismissed in the
terms and conditions of order passed in the case of Nitin Kulkarni (Supra).
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
(and)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 7/15/2025
6:48:00 PM