Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision application filed by the applicant (original defendant No.2) challenging an order dated 18/11/2019 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nagpur, rejecting an application under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The respondent No.1 (original plaintiff) filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction against the applicant and respondent No.2 (High Court Bar Association, Nagpur). The respondent No.1, a member of the Association, was aggrieved by a resolution dated 16/08/2019 whereby the applicant was elected as President of the Association. Elections for the Executive Council were held on 10/02/2017, and the applicant was elected as Vice-President. When the President was elevated as a Judge, he resigned, and a meeting on 16/08/2019 passed a resolution electing the applicant as President for the remaining term (expiring February 2020). The respondent No.1 claimed the resolution was illegal as it violated the Articles of the Constitution of the Association. The applicant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that it did not disclose a cause of action and was barred by law because the respondent No.1 had not exhausted internal remedies under the Articles of Association. The trial court rejected the application. The High Court, in revision, examined whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action and was barred by law. The court held that the plaint did disclose a cause of action as it alleged violation of the Articles of Association and illegality of the resolution. The court further held that the question of whether the suit was barred due to non-exhaustion of internal remedies was a mixed question of fact and law that could not be decided at the threshold. The court found no error in the trial court's order and dismissed the revision application.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Cause of Action - The court considered whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action and was barred by law. The applicant sought rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was not maintainable as the respondent No.1 had not exhausted internal remedies under the Articles of Association of the Bar Association. The court held that the plaint did disclose a cause of action and was not barred by law, as the allegations regarding violation of the Articles of Association and the resolution being illegal required trial. The application under Order 7 Rule 11 was rightly rejected. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Bar to Suit - The court examined whether the suit was barred by law due to non-exhaustion of internal remedies. The court held that the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold unless it is manifestly barred by law. The question of whether the respondent No.1 was required to exhaust internal remedies was a mixed question of fact and law, not suitable for summary rejection. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaint filed by the respondent No.1 was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for not disclosing a cause of action or being barred by law.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision application, upholding the trial court's order rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Law Points
- Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
- Rejection of Plaint
- Cause of Action
- Bar to Suit
- Maintainability
- Articles of Association
- Bar Association
- Election Dispute
