Uttarakhand High Court
Abhishek Jain vs M/S Vidhya Pushp Academy on 2 May, 2026
2026:UHC:3336
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
CIVIL REVISION No.46 of 2026
Abhishek Jain ..........Revisionist
Versus
M/s Vidhya Pushp Academy ......... Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Siddharth Jain, learned counsel for the revisionist.
Mr. Shailabh Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent appeared
through V.C.
———————————————————————-
Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. (oral)The present revision under Section 115 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as
“CPC“) has been preferred by the defendant/revisionist
against the order dated 06.03.2026 passed by the learned
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haldwani, District Nainital in
Civil Suit No.71 of 2025 titled as “Vidhya Pushp Academy vs.
Abhishek Jain”, by which the Applicant No.15C under Order
VII Rule 11 of CPC, filed by the defendant/revisionist was
rejected.
2. The relevant facts of the case as stated in this
revision leading to filing of this civil revision are as follows:
(i) A society was founded by the Late Shri Chetan Lal
Jain (grand-father), Late Smt. Shanti Devi (grand-
mother) & Late Shri Sunil Kumar Jain (father) of
1
2026:UHC:3336
the Revisionist and the respondent in the year
1999.
(ii) Later after the demise of certain members the
father of the Revisionist and respondent (Late Shri
Sunil Kumr Jain) became the President, the
respondent as the Vice-President, the Revisionist
as the Secretary, Smt. Rekha Jain (mother of
Revisionist & respondent) as Treasurer, Smt.
Anushika Jain (wife of the respondent) as a
member, Smt. Shanti Devi Jain (Grandmother of
Revisionist & respondent) as member and Smt.
Nidhi Jain (wife of Revisionist) as a member.
(iii) Looking to the conduct of the respondent, the
Revisionist, along with other members of the
society, with a majority removed the respondent
from the said society on 16.10.2025, and
therefore, since then, the respondent has not been
a part and parcel of the society.
(iv) Therefore, to further achieve his ulterior motives &
illegal gains the respondent filed Civil Suit No. 71
of 2025 seeking permanent injunction restraining
the Revisionist from interference in the functioning
of the respondent and with additional prayers.
(v) The Revisionist filed an application no 15C under
Order VII Rule 11 on the ground that the
2
2026:UHC:3336
respondent had no authority to file the suit, nor
was the suit maintainable as well as being
undervalued.
(vi) The respondent filed the reply to the said
application on 28.01.2026.
(vii) The trial court i.e. the Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Haldwani, District Nainital heard the
learned counsel for the parties on the application
preferred by the defendant/revisionist under Order
VII Rule 11 CPC and after considering the said
application and the objections raised on behalf of
the plaintiff/respondent against the same rejected
the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
vide impugned order dated 06.03.2026.
3. Aggrieved against the said order dated 06.03.2026,
the present Civil Revision has been preferred on behalf of the
defendant/revisionist. While adverting to the factual
narration as made in the affidavit in support of the revision,
learned counsel for the defendant/revisionist assailed the
impugned order on the premise that the plaintiff through Mr.
Akshat Jain never have the authority to institute the suit on
behalf of the plaintiff/society for the reason that (1) there was
no resolution to institute the suit, (2) Mr. Akshat Jain had
already been removed from the plaintiff/society.
3
2026:UHC:3336
4. The next submission made by the learned counsel
for the defendant/revisionist is that there was no cause of
action with the plaintiff since he had already been removed
from the plaintiff/society, hence in the absence of cause of
action, his case was covered by the provisions of Order VII
Rule 11(a) CPC.
5. He further made submissions that Mr. Akshat
Jain had no right to institute the suit against Mr. Abhishek
Jain, the defendant/revisionist in private capacity. It was
next canvassed by Mr. Siddharth Jain, learned counsel for
the defendant/revisionist, his case is covered by the
provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (a) CPC for the reasons that
Mr. Akshat Jain was not having locus standi to file the suit
because as per Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act,
‘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’. Thus, Mr. Siddharth Jain contends that since
Mr. Akshat Jain was neither President/Secretary nor he was
duly authorized to institute the suit on behalf of the society,
hence, as per provisions of Section 6 of the Societies
Registration Act, he had no locus to institute the suit and as
such the suit filed without cause of action as well as there
would be a bar under the law to institute the suit in terms of
provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC.
4
2026:UHC:3336
6. Per contra, Mr. Shailabh Pandey, Advocate, who is
appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent (through V.C.)
has contended that since the time of his father was alive in
the year 2013, Mr. Akshat Jain, who has instituted the suit,
had been litigating on behalf of the society.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
plaintiff/respondent has taken the Court through the
pleadings raised in paragraph no.5 of the plaint and has
stated that at the time of foundation of the plaintiff society,
Mr. Akshat Jain was the Vice President.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
plaintiff/respondent has also drawn the attention of the Court
to paragraph no.6 of the plaint, which reads as under:-
“6. That on account of the time to time demise of the
members of the society and also on account of Shri
Sanjay Jain, now at present the society is being run on
the following nomenclature:
a) Vacant, President.
b) Shri Akshat Jain, Vice President (Acting President in
absence of the President).
c) Shri Abhishek Jain, Secretary.
d) Smt. Rekha Jain, Treasurer.
e) Smt. Anushika Jain, Member.
f) Smt. Nidhi Jain, Member.”
A perusal of paragraph no.6 shows that the
capacity of Mr. Akshat Jain is acting President in the absence
of President.
5
2026:UHC:3336
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
plaintiff/respondent has also drawn the attention of the Court
to pleadings as raised in paragraph no.9 of the plaint, which
reads as under:-
“9. That immediately after the demise of their father the
defendant in a very clever manner conducted the
elections of the Plaintiff/society without passing any
agenda and without informing all the members on 20-
01-2022, i.e. within around one week of the demise of
Shri Sunil Kumar Jain. Against the said act of the
Defendant the Plaintiff through its Vice President filed
one complaint to the Deputy Registrar of Firms, Societies
and Chits, Haldwani. Thereafter the Deputy Registrar of
Firms, Societies and Chits, Haldwani forwarded the
said complaint against the Defendant to the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, Haldwani which is pending
consideration. Apart from the said complaint the Plaintiff
has time to time made various other complaints against
the illegal acts of the Defendant before the concerned
offices.”
10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent, thus,
contends that with reference to paragraph no.9 of the plaint,
the contentions regarding formation of the new body is
already under challenge before the concerned competent
Offices.
11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
plaintiff/respondent also made the submission that the
6
2026:UHC:3336
defendant/revisionist herein has been acting against the
interest of the society. Drawing the attention of the Court to
paragraph no.19 of the plaint, the learned counsel for the
plaintiff/respondent submits that the plaintiff/respondent
through its Vice President had filed a writ petition before this
Court being Writ Petition (M/S) No.2907 of 2024, titled as
“Vidhya Pushp Academy society vs. State of Uttarakhand &
Others” and while making a reference to para 19 of the plaint,
submits that when the earlier writ petition was filed, the
defendant/revisionist never raised any objection as to the
tenability of the writ petition on behalf of the Vice President
i.e. Mr. Akshat Jain. In fact, in the earlier writ petition, a
compromise was entered into between the parties; pursuance
of the same, the writ petition was withdrawn.
12. On a query made to the learned counsel for the
defendant/revisionist Mr. Siddharth Jain, he fairly submits
that in the earlier round of litigation in the aforesaid writ
petition, no objection was taken as to the tenability of the writ
petition at the behest of Vice President Mr. Akshat Jain.
13. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent drew
the attention of the Court to the objections filed on behalf of
the plaintiff/respondent against the application under Order
VII Rule 11 CPC and with reference to the said objections, he
pointed out para ‘B’ of the said objections, which reads as
under:-
7
2026:UHC:3336
“B. That the present application filed by the Defendantis a misuse and abuse of the process of law and the
same has been filed with the sole aim of wasting the
precious time of this Hon’ble Court and is part of the
delaying tactics of the Defendant, who is fully aware of
this material fact that since the year 2013 all the cases
on behalf of and in the name of the Plaintiff society have
been filed through its Vice Chairman and no such
objections have been till date raised by the Defendant or
any other member of the Plaintiff society nor the
authorization of the Vice Chairman has been denied by
any authority/Court/Tribunal. The same is sufficient to
prove that it is the Vice Chairman who has been
verbally nominated as well as authorized by its
members since year 2013 to always institute and
defend any case in the name of the Plaintiff society.
Now when the anomalies and illegalities of the
defendant are bought to the kind notice of this Hon’ble
Court then the defendant in a very clever manner is
taking such vague and concocted plea with the sole aim
of misleading this Hon’ble Court. On account of the said
facts defendant is estopped from making such a
submission.”
14. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent has
further submitted that that by virtue of application under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the defendant/revisionist is trying to
raise disputed questions of fact, which cannot be raised
through an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
8
2026:UHC:3336
15. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent has
drawn the attention of the court to para 8 of the impugned
order and made a submission that the contentions raised on
behalf of the defendant/revisionist have already been
considered and negatived by virtue of the impugned order
dated 06.03.2026. Para 8 of the impugned order is being
extracted herein below for ready reference:-
“8. The objection regarding the authority of Mr. Akshat
Jain to institute the suit on behalf of the plaintiff society
involves disputed questions of fact which require
evidence and therefore cannot be decided at this stage.
Similarly, the alleged bar under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 or the Specific Relief Act, 1963
cannot be determined merely on the basis of the
application filed by the defendant.”
16. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at
length and perusal of the record, it is evident that the
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been filed on
behalf of the defendant/revisionist with the following
contentions:-
“1. That the plaintiff has filed the present suit for
declaration and injunction before the Hon’ble court, on a
purely illusionary cause of action. On a meaningful and
not formal reading of the plaint, it is clear that no cause
of action in any manner arises to the plaintiff to file the
present suit. The plaint has been malafidely and
vexatiously filed with ulterior motives.
2. That the suit has been filed by ‘Vidhya Pushp
Academy’ through Akshat Jain, whereas infact said9
2026:UHC:3336
person has no authority to file the suit on behalf of the
plaintiff society, no resolution or authority has been
mentioned by the said person as such suit is liable to be
rejected on this score alone, as having been filed by an
unauthorized person and in violation of the provisions of
Societies Registration Act.
3. That the suit is barred by provision of the Societies
Registration Act and Specific Relief Act and the plaint is
liable to be rejected.
4. That the present suit is undervalued and improper
court fees have been paid, as such too the plaint is
liable to be rejected.”
17. From perusal of the impugned order dated
06.03.2026, it is clear that the trial court has considered that
the application has been filed by the defendant under Order
VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the plaint does not
disclose any cause of action, and the suit has been filed by
Vidya Pushp Academy through Mr. Akshat Jain, who has no
authority to institute the suit and the suit is barred under the
provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the
Specific Relief Act, 1963 and that the suit has been
undervalued and insufficient court fee has been paid.
18. The trial court then observed that it is well settled
while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC,
that only the averments made in the plaint and the
documents filed along with the plaint are required to be
considered. The defence of the defendant/revisionist cannot
be looked into at this stage.
10
2026:UHC:3336
19. After considering all the contentions raised in the
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the trial court came
to the conclusion that the objection regarding authority of Mr.
Akshat Jain to institute the suit on behalf of the plaintiff
society was disputed question of facts which required
evidence and therefore cannot be decided at this stage. Also,
the alleged bar under Societies Registration Act or Specific
Relief Act cannot be determined merely on the basis of
application filed by the defendant. As also the objections
regarding valuation and court fees is concerned, the plaint
can be rejected on this ground only when the court directs
the plaintiff to correct the valuation or to make the deficient
court fees and the plaintiff fails to comply with such
directions. In the present case, no such direction has been
issued by the court. Thus, on the aforesaid grounds, and after
considering the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the trial
court came to the conclusion that no ground is made out for
rejection of the plaint and proceeded to reject the application
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. At the outset, it needs to be
mentioned that the present revision has been preferred under
Section 115 CPC. Neither in any of the grounds nor while
assailing the impugned order the counsel for the
defendant/revisionist could point out any jurisdictional error,
which may warrant interference under section 115 of CPC.
20. Moreover, it is settled law by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of ‘Saleem Bhai and others vs. State of
Maharashtra and others‘, reported in (2003) 1 SCC 557, for
11
2026:UHC:3336
the purposes of deciding an application under clauses ‘a’ and
‘d’ of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the averments in the plaint
are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written
statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage.
21. Reference is also made to the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Kamala & Ors. vs. K.T.
Eshwara SA & Ors.‘ reported in (2008) 12 SCC 661, wherein
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph nos.21 and 22 has
held as under:-
“21. Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code has limited
application. It must be shown that the suit is barred
under any law. Such a conclusion must be drawn from
the averments made in the plaint. Different clauses in
Order 7 Rule 11, in our opinion, should not be mixed up.
Whereas in a given case, an application for rejection of
the plaint may be filed on more than one ground
specified in various sub-clauses thereof, a clear finding
to that effect must be arrived at. What would be
relevant for invoking clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the
Code are the averments made in the plaint. For that
purpose, there cannot be any addition or subtraction.
Absence of jurisdiction on the part of a court can be
invoked at different stages and under different
provisions of the Code. Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is
one, Order 14 Rule 2 is another.
22. For the purpose of invoking Order 7 Rule 11(d) of
the Code, no amount of evidence can be looked into. The
12
2026:UHC:3336
issues on merit of the matter which may arise betweenthe parties would not be within the realm of the court at
that stage. All issues shall not be the subject-matter of
an order under the said provision.”
Therefore, from the aforesaid judgment and the
settled position of law, it is clear that for the purpose of
rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it must be
demonstrated that the suit is barred by law on the face of the
plaint itself. In the present case, insofar as the reliance placed
on Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is
concerned, the same does not, ex facie, establish that the suit
is barred by any provision of law.
22. So far as the contentions raised in the application
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC regarding undervaluation of the
suit and payment of improper court fees are concerned, the
same have already been rightly dealt with by the learned trial
court, holding that unless a direction is issued to the plaintiff
to correct the valuation or to make good the deficient court
fees and there is failure to comply with such direction, the
plaint cannot be rejected on this ground.
23. A recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of ‘Marg Limited vs. Sushil Lalwani & Ors.’,
reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 647, is also relevant in the
present context. Paragraphs 33, 34 and 35 of the said
judgment read as under:-
13
2026:UHC:3336
“33. A plain and conjoint reading of clauses (b) and (c) ofOrder VII Rule 11 of the Code makes it abundantly clear
that the power to reject a plaint on the grounds
enumerated therein, is not to be exercised in the first
instance, without affording an opportunity to the
plaintiff. The statutory scheme contemplates a two-step
process. Firstly, the Court must form an opinion that the
relief claimed is undervalued or that the court fee paid
is insufficient. Secondly, upon such determination, the
Court is obligated to require the plaintiff to correct the
valuation and/or supply the requisite court fee within a
time to be fixed by it. It is only upon failure of the
plaintiff to comply with such direction within the
stipulated time, that the consequences of rejection of the
plaint can ensue. Thus, the rejection of a plaint under
Order VII Rule 11(b) or (c) is not automatic upon a
finding of undervaluation or deficit court fee; rather, it is
conditional upon non-compliance with the opportunity so
granted by the Court.
34. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the High Court
has merely recorded a conclusion that the suit is
undervalued, without undertaking the necessary
exercise of determining what, in its view, would
constitute the proper valuation of the suit or the court fee
payable in accordance with law. In the absence of such
a finding, the direction, if any, to correct the valuation
could not have been meaningfully complied with by the
plaintiff. The failure to record such a determination
further vitiates the impugned order. In the present case,
14
2026:UHC:3336
even assuming that the relief sought by the appellantwas undervalued and that the court fee paid was
deficient, the High Court, instead of directing the
appellant to correct the valuation and make good the
deficit court fee, proceeded to reject the plaint outrightly.
Such a course of action is clearly contrary to the express
mandate of the provision.
35. The requirement to grant an opportunity is not a
mere procedural formality, but a substantive safeguard
intended to ensure that a litigant is not non-suited on a
curable defect. The deficiency in valuation or court fee
does not, by itself, render the suit non-maintainable at
the threshold. It is a defect which is capable of being
remedied, and the law expressly provides a mechanism
for such rectification. The High Court, in overlooking this
statutory requirement, has effectively denied the
appellant an opportunity to cure the defect, thereby
defeating the very object underlying clauses (b) and (c)
of Order VII Rule 11. The impugned order, to this extent,
therefore, suffers from a manifest error of law.
Accordingly, the proper course would be to set aside the
rejection of the plaint on this ground and to direct the
trial court to afford the appellant an opportunity to
correct the valuation of the suit and to pay the requisite
court fee within such time as may be fixed, in
accordance with law.”
24. A perusal of the impugned order reflects that the
learned trial court has duly considered all the facts and
15
2026:UHC:3336
circumstances of the case, and after considering the
contentions raised in the application under Order VII Rule 11
CPC as well as the objections filed in response thereto, has
rightly come to the conclusion that the said application
deserves to be rejected. Cogent and sufficient reasons have
been assigned for rejecting the application.
25. In the case of ‘Marg Limited’ (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has categorically held that deficiency in
valuation or court fees does not, by itself, render the suit non-
maintainable at the threshold stage. Thus, on this count as
well, the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the
defendant/revisionist was not tenable, inasmuch as the
defendant/revisionist has failed to demonstrate that the suit
is barred by any law at this stage. Further, no jurisdictional
error has been pointed out by the defendant/revisionist in the
impugned order passed by the learned trial court so as to
warrant interference under Section 115 CPC. Hence, there is
no scope for interference in the present revision.
26. At this stage, learned counsel for the
defendant/revisionist makes a humble prayer that in the
event the defendant/revisionist raises a plea in the written
statement regarding bar of the suit, the same may be
considered as a preliminary issue and be decided prior to the
framing of other issues.
16
2026:UHC:3336
27. To it, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent
has no objection. However, he makes a humble request that,
in the event such liberty is granted by the Court, the
preliminary issue regarding tenability be directed to be
decided within a time-bound period.
28. In view of the above, it is directed that in case the
defendant/revisionist files his written statement and raises a
plea regarding tenability, a preliminary issue to that effect
shall be framed. The said preliminary issue shall be decided
within a period of two months from the date of its framing.
29. Subject to the above, the present revision fails and
is hereby dismissed.
30. Any observation made during the course of
adjudication of the present revision shall have no bearing on
the adjudication of the preliminary issue.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.)
02.05.2026
Akash
Digitally signed by AKASH
AKASH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=dae2472c001d56469ea76fc0caa68f48ef7
3518c148d140566ab1e26f9cbe61d,
postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=27096a1625377537a487dee49224c
891823fc6a0334628b21e516047ed4f22f7,
cn=AKASH
Date: 2026.05.06 18:11:21 +05’30’
17
[ad_1]
Source link
