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

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 971 · Decided: 22-08-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA, M.M. PUNCHHI, K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

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.) 
A 
B 
1 
- · ·' 
Societies Registration Act. 1860 (Act No. 2 I of 1860 as applicable 
' 
'y 
to rUttar Pradesh): Sections 23 and 25. Society-Members-Suit chal-
lenging office bearers' election and for rendition of accounts-Juris-
diction of Civil Court-Whether barred. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 9-Civi/ Court-Bar of 
jurisdiction. 
c 
The respondents instituted a civil suit challenging the election of 
D 
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 of Madhya 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] 
971 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
972 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] 3 S.C.R. 
3. Section 25 deals with disputes regarding challenge to the evic-
tion 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 '<' 
correct and the suit is maintainable. [976C-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2483 
of 1982. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.2.1982 of the Allahabad 
High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1744 of 1982. 
Gobind Mukhoty and U.S. Prasad for the Appellants. 
Ms. Rachna Gupta, Ms. Rani Chhabra and M.C. Dhingra for the 
Respondents. 
F 
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
' 
Appellant is a Society registered under the Societies Registration I 
Act, 21 of 1860. Five persons of whom some are respondents before us 
instituted a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Varanasi challenging 
the election of the Managing Committee and other elected officers of 
G 
the appellant and asked for rendition of accounts. This suit of 1981 
is still pending. We are now concerned with the correctness of the 
finding on the preliminary issue as to whether such a suit is main-
tainable in the Civil Court. The defendants' objection to the main- -
tainability is grounded upon the provisions contained in Sections 23 
and 25 of the Registration Act. The Courts below have taken the view 
H 
that the suit is not barred. That is why the defendants are here by 
special leave. 
NAGRI SABHA v. ADDL. DISTI. JUDGE 
973 
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 
}-1iignizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. The position is 
well-settled that exclusion of jur

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.