Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, defendant No.3 in O.S.No.49/2010, filed a civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC challenging the order dated 17.12.2018 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM at Kolar, which rejected her application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. The suit was filed by respondent No.1, a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of certain properties. The petitioner contended that the suit was barred under Section 70 of the Act as it related to the management of the society, and that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action and was barred by limitation. The trial court rejected the application, holding that the suit was not barred. The High Court examined the plaint allegations and found that the suit was for declaration of title based on a sale deed and for injunction, and not a dispute relating to the management of the society. The court held that Section 70 of the Act bars only suits between the society and its members or office bearers concerning the management of the society, and the present suit does not fall within that ambit. The court further held that at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the plaint and documents filed by the plaintiff can be considered, and the defence of the defendant cannot be looked into. The trial court had erred in relying on the written statement and documents filed by the defendant. Regarding limitation, the court observed that it is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided at this stage unless the plaint is ex facie barred. The plaint did not show that the suit was barred by limitation. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the trial court's order, and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint - The court must examine only the plaint allegations and documents filed by the plaintiff to determine if the suit is barred by law or does not disclose a cause of action - The defence of the defendant cannot be considered at this stage - Held that the trial court erred in relying on the defendant's written statement and documents to reject the plaint (Paras 5-6).
B) Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 - Section 70 - Bar of Suit - Section 70 bars suits relating to the management of a society only if the dispute is between the society and its members or office bearers - A suit for declaration of title and injunction against a society and its members based on a sale deed is not a dispute relating to the management of the society and is not barred - Held that the suit is maintainable (Paras 7-8).
C) Limitation - Rejection of Plaint - The question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided at the stage of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC unless the plaint is ex facie barred - The plaint in the present case does not show that the suit is barred by limitation - Held that the trial court's finding on limitation was premature (Para 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit filed by a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 is barred under Section 70 of the said Act and whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC for lack of cause of action and being barred by limitation.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the civil revision petition, set aside the order dated 17.12.2018 passed by the trial court, and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Section 70 Karnataka Societies Registration Act 1960
- Cause of Action
- Limitation
- Rejection of Plaint
Case Details
2022 LawText (KAR) (11) 1
Satya Deepa Ashrama, Sri C. Srinivasaiah, Smt. Sumithra Siddappa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision petition against order rejecting application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (defendant No.3) sought rejection of plaint in O.S.No.49/2010 on the ground that the suit was barred under Section 70 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, and that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action and was barred by limitation.
Filing Reason
Petitioner aggrieved by the trial court's order dated 17.12.2018 rejecting her application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 CPC.
Previous Decisions
Trial court rejected the application for rejection of plaint on 17.12.2018.
Issues
Whether the suit filed by a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 is barred under Section 70 of the said Act?
Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC for lack of cause of action and being barred by limitation?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the suit relates to the management of the society and is barred under Section 70 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960.
Petitioner argued that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action and is barred by limitation.
Respondents remained unrepresented.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the plaint allegations and documents filed by the plaintiff can be considered, and the defence of the defendant cannot be looked into. Section 70 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 bars only suits between the society and its members or office bearers concerning the management of the society, and a suit for declaration of title and injunction based on a sale deed is not such a dispute. The question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided at this stage unless the plaint is ex facie barred.
Judgment Excerpts
The suit before the trial Court has been filed by respondent No.1. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 claims to be a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960...
The trial Court has rejected the application. The reasoning of the trial Court is that the suit is not barred under Section 70 of the Act.
At the stage of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to look into the plaint allegations and the documents filed by the plaintiff along with the plaint. The defence of the defendant cannot be looked into.
Section 70 of the Act bars suits relating to the management of a society. The suit in the present case is for declaration and injunction based on a sale deed. It is not a dispute relating to the management of the society.
The question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided at the stage of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC unless the plaint is ex facie barred.
Procedural History
The suit O.S.No.49/2010 was filed by respondent No.1 (plaintiff) before the Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Kolar. The petitioner (defendant No.3) filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 CPC on 09.10.2017 seeking rejection of the plaint. The trial court rejected the application on 17.12.2018. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka. Notice to respondent No.2 was dispensed with on 25.10.2021, and notice to respondents No.1 and 3 was held sufficient on 18.10.2022. The High Court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 10.11.2022.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Section 115, Order VII Rule 11(a), Order VII Rule 11(d), Section 151
- Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960: Section 70
