JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Sanjay Singh Chauhan in the capacity of Secretary of Himachal Pradesh Voluntary Association instituted a suit wherein on the ground of the apposite elections contravening the constitution of the “Society” he hence constituted a challenge to the election of respondents No.1 to 9, as President, vice President, Secretary, Treasurer besides Members and office bearers of the aforesaid association. He also canvassed therein qua rendition of a declaratory decree qua the election of the afore-stated defendants being quashed and set aside. The suit aforesaid stood instituted in the year 2011. 2. The defendants contested the suit by instituting a written statement thereto wherein they raised a trite objection qua with the aforesaid plaintiff not at the apposite stage donning the capacity of Secretary of the Himachal Pradesh Voluntary Health Association, a registered Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (for short 'the Society’) rather the capacity afore-stated standing extantly manned by its newly elected Secretary rendering hence the frame of array of plaintiff (s) being mis-constituted also a contest was made therein qua the relief canvassed therein being unaffordable to the plaintiff. Also on anvil of omission of joinder of the “Society” in the array of defendants, an apposite objection qua the maintainability of the suit stood raised therein. 3. On the contentious pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court under its orders made on 10.01.2014 struck the relevant issues arising from the contentious pleadings of the parties at contest where-amongst one, is an issue qua the plaintiff holding a legally enforceable cause of action vis-à-vis the defendants. Previous thereto an application under the provisions of Section 151 of the CPC stood instituted by the defendants before the learned trial Court holding a prayer therein qua the suit of the plaintiffs being ordered to be dismissed. On the afore-stated application the learned trial Court below pronounced the impugned orders whereby the relief as canvassed therein stood refused to the defendants wherefrom the defendants stand aggrieved, hence are constrained to prefer herebefore the instant petition for quashing them. 4. On the afore-stated application the learned trial Court below pronounced the impugned orders whereby the relief as canvassed therein stood refused to the defendants wherefrom the defendants stand aggrieved, hence are constrained to prefer herebefore the instant petition for quashing them. 4. The application preferred under Section 151 CPC subsequent to completion of pleadings inter se the litigating parties before the Court concerned purportedly appears to stand instituted under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, provisions whereof embody therein the grounds whereupon a civil Court can order for rejection of plaint, one amongst which is nonexistence of a disclosure therein qua any cause of action accruing to the plaintiff, ground whereof stands apparently reared in the apposite pleadings of the defendants, whereon an apposite issue also stands struck by the learned trial Court. The availment of the aforesaid provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by the defendants, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- “11. Rejection of plaint.- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:— (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails comply with the provision of Rule 9. Provided that the time fixed by the court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp papers shall not be extended unless the court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp papers, as the case may be within the time fixed by the court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.” stood enjoined to occur at the outset, precisely at the stage whereat they stood efficaciously served by the learned trial Court. However, visibly the defendants procrastinated theirs availing the aforesaid provisions of the CPC comprised in theirs constituting besides rearing pleadings in their written statement with a disclosure therein qua no cause of action subsisting vis-à-vis the plaintiff. The learned trial Court had concluded qua with an apposite issue qua the plaintiff holding no enforceable cause of action vis-à-vis the defendants standing ordered to be struck, whereupon evidence remaining yet un-adduced hence rendered the apposite application to warrant rejection. The impugned order pronounced by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any apparent illegality or impropriety conspicuously when the defendants at the stage whereat they initially received copy of the summons from the learned trial Court they abandoned besides waived their statutory right qua theirs thereat promptly availing the relevant grounds embodied in Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, for thereupon theirs seeking an apposite relief, relief whereof rather subsequent thereto stood constituted in the application at hand, also imperatively when availment thereof thereat constituted the apposite stage for theirs availing them contrarily when rather they procrastinated their availment even up to the stage whereat they in their written statement raised an apposite contention in consonance therewith bespeaks of the principle of thereupon theirs standing estopped to subsequent thereto unveil a ground in tandem thereof whereby they hence stand baulked in making their relevant espousal qua the plaintiffs extantly holding no subsisting cause of action vis-à-vis them. Moreso, when the factum aforesaid is construed along with the factum qua an apposite issue standing struck thereon by the learned trial Court whereon evidence remains yet un-adduced whereupon an inference is engendered qua prima facie hence this Court standing not constrained to pronounce qua the suit of the plaintiff warranting dismissal especially when the aforesaid pronouncement would be a premature closure besides termination of the suit even when the relevant issues are open for trial. Also with the relevant constitution of the “Society”/“Association” holding a mandate therein qua its authorized Secretary holding an authorization to enjoy the apposite term for a period of three years, period whereof may stand completed by the Secretary whose election stands challenged by Sanjay Singh Chauhan, may also obviously be a relevant factor before the Court below to make its relevant pronouncement thereon. In face thereof, when the suit of the plaintiff may prima facie ultimately suffer the fate of dismissal whereupon any adverse pronouncement qua the plaintiffs by this Court at this stage may ultimately forestall the learned trial Court to record an apposite verdict thereupon rather would present it with a fait accompli. For obviating any occurrence of the aforesaid casualty, this Court does not deem it fit and proper to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Court below. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants has submitted before this Court that even the term of the defendants who stand elected in various capacities in the “society”/“Association” has ended whereupon she contends of the suit warranting dismissal. However, the aforesaid submission is open to be addressed before the learned trial Judge, who on adduction of germane evidence in substantiation thereof may record an apposite verdict thereon. 6. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the defendants has contended qua Sanjay Singh Chauhan mis-reflecting himself to be the Secretary of the Society significantly when he stands substituted by a newly elected Secretary besides she contends of the suit being bad for non-joinder of the “Society”/ “Association” in the array of defendants whereas its joinder in the array of co-defendants was imperative. However, all the aforesaid defects in the frame of the suit or in the constitution of the litigating parties may be curable by an appropriate application standing preferred by the plaintiff before the learned Court below whereon it is open for the learned trial Court to record an appropriate decision thereon. 7. The factum of the suit being barred by statutory provisions engrafted in the relevant statute besides its thereupon being not maintainable may also not warrant this Court to record a pronouncement thereupon significantly when an apposite issue qua the facet aforesaid stands struck by the learned trial Court whereon the parties may adduce the relevant evidence for facilitating the learned trial Court to record a clinching finding thereon. 8. For all the reasons, which stand assigned herein-above, the reasoning afforded by the learned Court below in dismissing the application of the defendants is free from any fault. In sequel, there is no merit in the instant petition, the same is dismissed. 8. For all the reasons, which stand assigned herein-above, the reasoning afforded by the learned Court below in dismissing the application of the defendants is free from any fault. In sequel, there is no merit in the instant petition, the same is dismissed. However, it is made clear that any observation made herein-above will have no bearing on the merits of the case and the learned trial Court shall decide the suit uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove. All pending application (s) shall also stand disposed of.