NAGRI PRACHARINI SABHA AND ANR. v. VTH ADDL. DISTT. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, VARANASI AND ORS

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 971

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: RANGANATH MISRA, M.M. PUNCHHI, K. RAMASWAMY

Case summary

Section 25 deals with disputes regarding challenge to the eviction of office-bearers. The courts below having held that the suit was not barred, the defendant Society filed appeal in this Court.

Judgment text

NAGRI PRACHARINI SABHA AND ANR. v. , ·VTH ADDL. DISTT. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, VARANASI ) AND ORS. AUGUST 22, 1990 [RANGANATH MISRA, M. M. PUNCHHI AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ. ) 1 - · ·' Societies Registration Act. 1860 (Act No. 2 I of 1860 as applicable to rUttar Pradesh): Sections 23 and 25. Society-Members-Suit challenging office bearers' election and for rendition of accounts-Jurisdiction ofCivil Court-Whether barred. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 9-Civi/ Court-Bar of jurisdiction. 'y The respondents instituted a civil suit challenging the election of the office bearers' of the appellant-Society and asked for rendition of accounts. The appellant-Society contested the suit on the ground that in view of Sections 23 and 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 the suit was barred. The courts below having held that the suit was not barred, the defendant Society filed appeal in this Court. '7. Dismissing the appeal, this Court, HELD: I.

A litigant having a grievance of a civil nature has, independently of any statute, a right to institute a suit in the civil court unless its cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. The exclu- "°'· sion of jurisdiction of the civil court is not to be readily inferred and such exclusion must be either express or implied. [973A-B] \ K. S. Venkataraman & Company v. State of Madras, [1966) 2 S. C. R. 229; Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar and Ors. , [1968) 3 S. C. R. 662; Dhula Bhai and Ors. v. The State ofMadhya Pradesh and Ors. , [1974) 3 S. C. R. 882; referred. Raleigh Investment Company Limited v. The Governor General in Council, )1947) L. R. 74 I. A. 50; cited. 2. The provisions of Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act, ' 1860 are confined to audit and have nothing to do with the relief of rendition of accounts. [9768] 3. Section 25 deals with disputes regarding challenge to the eviction of office-bearers. The maintainability of dispute within the purview.

I of that Section is hedged with conditions and unless such requirement is \.. fulfilled, a statutory dispute would not be maintainable. [9768] 3. 1 In the instant case the action in the Civil Court is by some of the members who perhaps would not satisfy the requirement laid down in Section 25. It cannot be said that Section 25 having provided the pre-conditions on the satisfaction of which a dispute within the purview - . of that Section would be maintainable before the Registrar takes away the right of Members of the Society to claim relief otherwise outside ·the purview of Section 25 on the basis of their right to seek remedy for their grievance. It is not the appellant's contention that the relief claimed is not one which would come within the ambit of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Therefore, the bar of Section 25 is not applicable to the facts of the case, and the conclusion reached in the Courts below is ' · - (iv) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or elector to be- ,rll lieve that he, or any person in whom he is interested, will become or will be rendered an object of divine displeasure or spiritual censure; (v) canvasses on grounds of caste, community, sect or religion; (vi) commits such other practice as the Government may prescribe to be a corrupt practice. Explanation II-A 'promise of individual advantage or profit to a person' includes a promise for the benefit of the person himself, or of any one in which he is interested. Explanation III-The State Government may prescribe the procedure 7 for hearing and decision of doubts or disputes in respect of such elec- ! ions and make provision in respect of any other matter relating to such elections for which insufficient provisions exists in this Act or in the rules of the society.

(2) Where by an order made under sub-section (1), an election is set aside or an office bearer is held no longer entitled to continue in office or where the Registrar is satisfied that any election of office ( bearers of a society has not been held within the time specified in the rules of that society, he may call meeting of the general body of such society for electing such office-bearer or office-bearers, and such meeting shall be presided over and be conducted by the Registrar or by any officer authorised by him in this behalf, and the provisions in the rules of the society relating to meetings and elections shall apply to such meeting and election with necessary modifications. 4-- (3) Where a meeting is called by the Registrar under sub-section (2), no other meeting shall be called for the purpose of election by any other authority or any person claiming to be an office-bearer of the society.

Explanation-For the purposes of this section, the expression 'prescribed authority' means an officer or court authorised in this behalf by the State Government by notification published in the Official -\ Gazette. We are of the view that provisions of Section 23 are confined to audit and have nothing to do with the relief of rendition of accounts. No more is necessary to be said about that relief. Section 25 deals with disputes regarding challenge to the eviction of office-bearers. The maintainability of dispute within the purview of that Section is hedged with conditions and unless such requirement is fulfilled, a statutory dispute would not be maintainable. The present action in the Civil Court is by some of the members who perhaps would not satisfy the requirements laid down in Section 25.

It cannot be contended that Section 25 having provided the pre-conditions on the satisfaction of which a dispute within the purview of that Section would be maintainable before the Registrar takes away the right of Members of the Society to claim relief otherwise outside the purview of Section 25 on the basis of their right to seek remedy for their grievance. It is not the contention of Mr. Mukhoty that the relief claimed is not o·ne which would come within the ambit of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That being so. we are of the view that the bar of Section 25 is not applicable to the facts of the case. Therefore, the conclusion reached in the Courts below is correct and the suit is . ~aintainable. We pointed out to Mr. Mukhoty that the relief against election of office bearers must have become infructuous with the passage of time as the election JS annual.

It is for the trial Court now to dispose of the suit taking into consideration the changes in the situations that may be brought before it. We dismiss the appeal and direct the trial court to expedite the disposal of the suit. No costs. T. N. A. Appeal dismissed. )