http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: NAGRI PRACHARINI SABHA AND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: VTH ADDl. DISTT. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, VARANASIAND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT22/08/1990

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. MISRA RANGNATH PUNCHHI, M.M.

CITATION:  1990 SCR  (3) 971        1991 SCC  Supl.  (2)  36  JT 1990 (4)   160        1990 SCALE  (2)404

ACT:     Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Act No. 21 of 1860  as applicable   to   Uttar  Pradesh):  Sections  23   and   25. Society--Members--Suit challenging office bearers’  election and   for  rendition  of  accounts--Jurisdiction  of   Civil Court--Whether barred.     Code   of  Civil  Procedure,  1908:   Section   9--Civil Court--Bar of Jurisdiction.

HEADNOTE:     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. Dismissing the appeal, this Court,     HELD: 1. 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 exclusion 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  Regis- tration Act, 1860 are confined to audit and have nothing  to do with the relief of rendition of accounts. [976B] 972     3. 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. [976B]     3.1 In the instant case the action in the Civil Court is by  some  of the members who perhaps would not  satisfy  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

requirement laid down in Section 25. It cannot be said  that Section 25 having provided the pre-conditions on the  satis- faction  of which a dispute within the purview of that  Sec- tion  would be maintainable before the Registrar takes  away the  right of Members of the Society to claim relief  other- wise 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]

JUDGMENT:     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. The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by     Appellant  is a Society registered under  the  Societies Registration 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 Manag- ing  Committee and other elected officers of  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  maintainable in the Civil Court.  The  defendants’ objection to the maintainability is grounded upon the provi- sions  contained in Sections 23 and 25 of  the  Registration Act.  The Courts below have taken the view that the suit  is not  barred. That is why the defendants are here by  special leave. 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 cognizance is either expressly or impliedly  barred. The position is well-settled that  exclu- sion of jurisdiction of the civil court is not to be readily inferred  and  such exclusion must be  either  expressly  or implied.     Reliance has been placed by Mr. Mukhoty before us on the ratio  of the Constitution Bench decision of this  Court  in K.S.  Venkataraman  & Company v. State of Madras,  [1966]  2 S.C.R. 229 where reference has been made to the Privy  Coun- cil case in Raleigh Investment Company Limited v. The Gover- nor General in Council. It has been laid down that the Civil Court’s  jurisdiction would be presumed unless the  contrary is  indicated.  Mr. Mukhoty has also relied upon  two  other decisions being Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar and Others,  [1968] 3  S.C.R.  662 and Dhula bhai and Others, v.  The  State  of Madhya Pradesh and Another, [ 1974] 3 S.C.R. 882. The  legal position  thus seems to be clear and it is not necessary  to quote further authorities.     What is really in dispute is the application of the rule to  the  facts of the case. To ascertain  whether  the  suit would be barred, the effect of the provisions of Sections 23 and 25 of the Registration Act with the U .P. amendments has

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

to be considered. These sections provide: "23. Audit: (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of  sub- section (2) of Section 4 or of Section 22, where the  Regis- trar  is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so  to do, he may, by written order, require any society to furnish its  accounts or a copy of a statement of receipts  and  ex- penditure  for any particular year duly audited by  a  Char- tered Accountant:           Provided that the Registrar may, at the request of society permit it to have such accounts and statement audit- ed by any other person by him. (2)  If the society fails to furnish the documents  referred to  in  sub-section (1) within the period specified  in  the order or with such extended period as the Registrar may from time to time allow, the Registrar may cause the accounts  of such  society audited for the said year and may recover  the cost of such audit from that society. (3)  If the society neglects or refuses to make its  account or 974 other  documents available for audit under  sub-section  (2) or,  in  the opinion of the Registrar,  otherwise  fails  to provide requisite facilities to have the audit made with due expedition,  the Registrar may proceed to take action  under Section 24. 25.  Disputes regarding election of office-bearers:-(1)  The prescribed  authority may, on a reference made to it by  the Registrar  or  by at least one fourth of the  members  of  a society  registered in Uttar Pradesh, hear and decide  in  a summary manner any doubt or dispute in respect of the  elec- tion  or continuance in office of an office-bearer  of  such society,  and may pass such orders in respect thereof as  it deems fit:          Provided  that  the election of  an  office  bearer shall be set aside where the prescribed authority is  satis- fied:- (a)  that  any corrupt practice has been committed  by  such office bearer; or (b) that the nomination of any candidate has been improperly rejected; or (c) that the result of the election in so far as it concerns such  office-bearer  has  been materially  affected  by  the improper  acceptance  of any nomination or by  the  improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void or by any non-compliance with  the provisions of any rules of the society.     Explanation I.--A person shall be deemed to have commit- ted  a corrupt practice who directly or indirectly, by  him- self or by any other person-- (i)  induces, or attempts to induce, by  fraud,  intentional misrepresentation, coercion or threat of injury, any elector to  give or to refrain from giving a vote in favour  of  any candidate, or any person to stand or not to stand as, or  to withdraw  or not to withdraw from being a candidate  at  the election; (ii)  with  a  view to inducing any elector to  give  or  to refrain from giving a vote in favour of any candidate, or to inducing any 975 person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being, a candidate at the election, offers  or gives any money, or valuable consideration, or any place  of employment, or holds out any promise of individual advantage or profit to any person; (iii)  abets (within the meaning of the Indian  Penal  Code)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

the  doing  of any of the acts specified in clause  (i)  and (ii); (iv) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or elector to believe  that  he, or any person in whom he  is  interested, will  become  or will be rendered an object of  divine  dis- pleasure or spiritual censure; (v) canvasses on grounds of caste, community, sect or  reli- gion; (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 for hearing and decision of doubts or disputes  in respect  of such elections and make provision in respect  of any other matter relating to such elections for which insuf- ficient 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.     (3)  Where  a meeting is called by the  Registrar  under sub-section 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. 976 Explanation--For  the purposes of this section, the  expres- sion ’prescribed authority’ means an officer or court autho- rised 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  con- fined  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  chal- lenge 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  main- tainable  before the Registrar takes away the right of  Mem- bers  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 one which would  come within  the ambit of Section 9 of the Code of  Civil  Proce- dure.  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 maintainable.     We  pointed out to Mr. Mukhoty that the  relief  against election of office bearers must have become infructuous with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

the passage of time as the election is annual. It is for the trial Court now to dispose of the suit taking into consider- ation  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. 977