Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 523 (UTT)

THOK KENDRIYA SAHKARI UPBHOKTA BHANDAR LTD. v. RAM GAUSHALA TRUST SAMITI

2008-11-24

V.K.GUPTA

body2008
JUDGMENT Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has confined his submissions only to one point and that is with respect to the competence of Girish Chandra Tripathi to represent the respondent – Society in his capacity as the Joint Secretary of the respondent – Society. In other words, Mr. Rajendra Dobhal’s only contention is that the Suit was not maintainable because it was filed, even though in the name of the Society but through Girish Chandra Tripathi who was the Joint Secretary of the Society. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal contended that the Suit could have been maintained only by the Secretary of the Society as per the Regulations. No other point was urged. 2. The plaintiff/respondent claims to be a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. In the Plaint filed for eviction of the petitioner/defendant from the property in question, in para 2, it was averred by the plaintiff/respondent that it was a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and that Sri Girish Chandra Tripathi is the Joint Secretary of the Society and that the Society has authorized him to file the Suit in its name and on the behalf. 3. Both the averments contained in para 2, viz. to the effect that the plaintiff was a Society and Girish Chandra Tripathi, being its Joint Secretary, was authorized to file the Suit, were denied in the Written Statement filed by the petitioner/defendant, which gave rise to the framing of two issues to the following effect : 1. Whether the plaintiff is a Society registered under Societies Registration Act? 2. Whether Sri Girish Chandra Tripathi is the Joint Secretary of plaintiff – Society? If so, has he been authorized to file the Suit on its behalf? 4. Both the courts below decided the aforesaid two issues in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and against the petitioner/defendant. 5. Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 reads thus : “6. Suits by and against societies. If so, has he been authorized to file the Suit on its behalf? 4. Both the courts below decided the aforesaid two issues in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and against the petitioner/defendant. 5. Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 reads thus : “6. Suits by and against societies. – 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 : Provided that it shall be competent for any person having a claim, or demand against the society, to sue the president or chairman, or principal secretary or the trustees thereof, if on application to the governing body some other officer or person be not nominated to be the defendant.” 6. On its bare perusal, apparently, Section 6 is not attracted in the present case because all that it says is that a society may sue in the name of its President, Chairman or Principal-Secretary etc. as may be determined by the Rule and Regulations of the Society etc. Section 6 does not stipulate or contemplate filing of a suit by the society in its own name. It stipulates and contemplates filing of a suit by a society, not in its own name, but in the name of its President, Chairman or Principal Secretary etc. In the present case, the Suit was filed by the Society in its own name, undoubtedly through Sri Girish Chandra Tripathi, its Joint Secretary. 7. It is a common law practice that every juristic person can sue in its own name though any of its principal officers. Joint Secretary, undoubtedly, is a principal officer of the Society and, therefore, in common law also, he was permitted to file the Suit in the name of the Society. 8. The aforesaid apart, both the court below have referred to and relied upon the Registration Certificate of the Society as well as the Resolutions and Authorizations, wherein and whereby Sri Girish Chandra Tripathi was authorized and permitted to file the Suit in behalf of, in the name of and for the Society. 9. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the Contention of Mr. 9. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the Contention of Mr. Rajendra Dobhal. In the result, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed but without any orders as to costs. 10. As this judgment was being dictated, Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, prays for the grant of some reasonable time, say three months, for the petitioner to vacate the premises in question and to handover the vacant possession thereof the respondent. Mr. Rajendra Dobhals’ prayer is accepted. It is directed that subject to the petitioner/defendant filing a Written Undertaking within two weeks from today in the trial court to the effect that it shall vacate and handover the vacant possession of the property in question to the respondent within three months form today, the execution of the impugned eviction decree against the petitioner shall stay till 24th February, 2009. If the Written Undertaking is not filed within the aforesaid period, this direction shall cease to operate. The time is also granted subject to the petitioner paying the arrears of the mesne profits/decretal amount uptill date to the respondent within four weeks from today.