Civil Revision No. 4882 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4882 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.08.2009 Mahatma Jyoti Rao Educational Society and another ....Petitioners versus Jitender Pal and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Arun Singal, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) CM No. 20238-CII of 2009 Allowed. The applicant-petitioner is exempted from filing the certified copies of Annexure P-1 to P-7. CR No. 4882 of 2009 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.6.2009, passed by the learned trial Court, vide which the application moved by the petitioners, for treating issues No. 3 and 4 as preliminary issues, has been dismissed. The plaintiff/respondents filed a suit against the petitioners, seeking rendition of accounts, and also for permanent injunction, restraining the petitioners herein from removing them from membership. The suit was contested. Civil Revision No. 4882 of 2009 (O&M) -2- On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court was pleased to frame the following issues: - “1) Whether plaintiff are entitled to the rendition of accounts? OPP 2) Whether plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit? OPD 3) Whether suit is not maintainable? OPD 4) Whether civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD 5) Whether suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 6) Relief.” The application was moved by the petitioners, for treating issues No. 3 and 4 as preliminary issues. The learned trial Court dismissed the application, by holding that prima facie the plaintiff/respondents were the members of the Society, as their expulsion was in dispute, for the reason that they were expelled by the Chairman, who had no such authority. In support of this finding, reliance was placed on para No. 15 of the memorandum of the Society. The plea of the petitioners, that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit, was also found to be not sustainable, as reliance was sought to be placed on the provisions of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, whereas the petitioner-Society was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which did not bar the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain and try the suit. The plea that the suit was not competent under Section 92 CPC also did not find favour with the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court held that the finding on issues No. 3 and 4 could only be given Civil Revision No. 4882 of 2009 (O&M) -3- after the parties were allowed to lead evidence, therefore, these issues could not be treated to be preliminary issues. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended, that the impugned order cannot be sustained, as the strangers have no right to file a suit against the Society. This plea is totally mis-conceived. The learned trial Court found, that prima facie the expulsion by the petitioners was not valid, therefore, the plaintiff/respondents were members of the Society, and, therefore, were competent to maintain the suit. In any case, the Court has merely held, that these issues could not be treated to be preliminary issues, as the evidence of the parties would be required to prove the respective claims. The learned counsel for the petitioners also contended, that the learned trial Court had failed to notice that the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is complete code in itself and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which reads as under: - “6. Suits by and against societies.--Every society registered under this Act may sue or be sued in the name of the president, chairman, or principal secretary, or trustees, as shall be determined by the rules and 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 Civil Revision No. 4882 of 2009 (O&M) -4- sue the president or chairman, or principal secretary or the trustees thereof, if on application to the governing body some other officer or person be not nominated to be the defendant.” The reading of Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act shows, that this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally mis-conceived. Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act provides the mode, as to how the Society can sue or be sued, meaning thereby that the dispute against Society is to be adjudicated only by the civil Court, therefore, the civil Court jurisdiction is not barred under the Act. No Merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 27, 2009 R.S.