-
by sayum
28 July 2026 1:44 PM
"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." Uttarakhand High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC based on the defendant's claim regarding the plaintiff’s lack of authority, as such matters constitute disputed questions of fact requiring evidence.
A single bench of Justice Siddhartha Sah observed that while deciding an application for rejection of a plaint, only the averments in the plaint are germane, and the defense raised by the defendant is wholly irrelevant.
The dispute arose within a registered society, M/s Vidhya Pushp Academy, where the revisionist (Abhishek Jain) claimed that the person instituting the suit on behalf of the society had been removed and lacked authority. The revisionist filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on grounds of lack of cause of action, lack of authority under Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, and undervaluation of the suit. The Trial Court rejected the application, prompting the revisionist to approach the High Court under Section 115 CPC.
The primary question before the court was whether the authority of a person to institute a suit on behalf of a society can be determined under Order VII Rule 11 CPC when such authority is disputed. The court was also called upon to determine whether a plaint can be summarily rejected for undervaluation without the court first directing the plaintiff to correct the valuation and pay the deficit court fees.
Only Plaint Averments To Be Considered Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
Justice Siddhartha Sah emphasized the settled legal position regarding the scope of Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d). The court noted that for the purpose of deciding such an application, the averments in the plaint are germane and the court cannot look into the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement. The bench reiterated that the court must take the allegations in the plaint to be correct at this stage without any addition or subtraction.
The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Saleem Bhai and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, highlighting that the trial court's scrutiny must be restricted to the four corners of the plaint. "For 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," the bench observed.
Authority To Institute Suit Is A Matter Of Evidence
Addressing the challenge to the authority of the Vice President to sue on behalf of the society, the court found that this involved disputed questions of fact. While the revisionist argued that the person had been removed and no resolution was passed, the plaint described him as the "Acting President." The court held that such contradictions cannot be resolved at the threshold but require a full trial.
Question Of Authority Cannot Be Decided At Threshold
The court noted that Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, does not ex facie establish that a suit filed by a Vice President is barred by law. Justice Sah observed that since the plaintiff society claimed the person was authorized as the Acting President, the truth of this claim could only be tested through evidence. The bench stated that the alleged bar under the Societies Registration Act cannot be determined merely on the basis of an application filed by the defendant.
Undervaluation Not An Automatic Ground For Rejection
Regarding the contention of undervaluation and insufficient court fees under Order VII Rule 11(b) and (c), the court relied on the recent Supreme Court precedent in Marg Limited v. Sushil Lalwani & Ors. It was observed that the power to reject a plaint on these grounds is not to be exercised in the first instance without affording an opportunity to the plaintiff to remedy the defect.
Court Explains Two-Step Process For Rejection Due To Undervaluation
The bench explained that the statutory scheme contemplates a two-step process where the court must first form an opinion on undervaluation and then direct the plaintiff to supply the requisite court fee within a fixed time. "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," the court noted. Since no such direction was issued by the Trial Court, the prayer for rejection was deemed untenable.
Interference Under Section 115 CPC Limited To Jurisdictional Errors
The High Court further observed that the revisionist failed to point out any jurisdictional error in the Trial Court's order that would warrant interference under Section 115 CPC. The bench found that the Trial Court had assigned cogent reasons for its decision. The court concluded that as long as the plaint discloses a cause of action on its face, it cannot be thrown out at the preliminary stage based on the defendant's version of facts.
Liberty To Raise Preliminary Issue In Written Statement
While dismissing the revision, the court protected the revisionist's right to contest the maintainability of the suit. Justice Sah granted liberty to the revisionist to raise the plea of tenability in their written statement. The court directed that if such a plea is raised, the trial court shall frame a preliminary issue and decide the same within a period of two months from the date of its framing.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the civil revision, upholding the Trial Court’s refusal to reject the plaint. The court clarified that disputes regarding the authority of a person to represent a society are matters of trial and that undervaluation is a curable defect that does not warrant an outright rejection without prior notice to the plaintiff.
Date of Decision: 02 May 2026
