[2025:RJ-JP:19741] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 77/2025 1. Ramgopal Meena S/o Shri Kalyan Sahay Meena, R/o Shyampura, Post Mohanpura, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur, Presently Residing At Mitra Vihar Colony, New Colony, Chak Road, Bassi, Jaipur Through President 2. Ramlal Meena Son Of Shri Ramsahay Meena, Resident Of Village Charanvas, Tehsil-Bassi, District Jaipur, Presently Posted As Headmaster Government Upper Primary School, New Colony Bassi, District Jaipur Through Treasurer. 3. Kailash Chand Meena Son Of Shri Ramdhan Meena, Resident Of Dhani Tundala Maali Hala Khori, Banskho, Bassi, District Jaipur Through General Secretary/secretary, Presently Posted As Teacher At Government Upper Primary School Ksetrapal, Gram Panchayat Banskho, Tehsil-Bassi, Jaipur. 4. Adivasi Meena Karamchari Vikas Samiti, Bassi, Registered Office Nai Ke Nath Dham, Bans Kho, Tehsil-Bassi, District Jaipur, Through Resident Ramgopal Meena Son Of Shri Kalyan Sahay Meena. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Ramsahay Meena Son Of Shree Ramanand Meena, Resident Of Gram Kho Ghati, Post Office Bainada, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur. 2. Harji Lal Meena Son Of Shree Mulchand Meena, Resident Of Village Sanwaliya Wala, Post Anatpura, Tehsil Tunga, District Jaipur. 3. Jagdish Narayan Meena Son Of Shri Kanaram Meena, Resident Of Village Chorwada, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur. 4. Badrinarayan Meena Son Of Shri Prabhati Lal Meena, Resident Of Dhani Khejdawala, Gram Post Banskho, Bassi, Tehsil-Bassi, District Jaipur. 5. Shankarlal Meena Son Of Shri Rampal Meena, Resident Of Village Dopur, Tehsil-Bassi, District Jaipur. 6. Devkaran Meena Son Of Shri Narayan Lal Meena, Resident Of Village Hardi, Post Kuthda, Tehsil Bassi, [2025:RJ-JP:19741] (2 of 6) [CR-77/2025] District Jaipur. 7. Ramlal Meena Son Of Shri Laduram Meena, Resident Of Village Ghata Post Benada, Tehsil-Bassi, District Jaipur. 8. Gopal Lal Meena Son Of Shri Shankar Lal Meena, Resident Of Village Hardi, Post Kuthada, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur. 9. Kanaram Meena Son Of Shri Ramkishan Meena, Resident Of Village Hardi, Post Kutahda, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur. 10. Bhori Lal Meena Son Of Shri Kanaram Meena, Resident Of Village Ghata, Post Benada, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur. 11. Siyaram Meena Son Of Shri Narsi Lal Meena, Resident Of Village Heerawala, Post Ramratanpura, Tehsil-Bassi, District Jaipur. 12. Pushpendra Meena Son Of Shri Sohan Lal Meena, Resident Of Village Kho Ghati, Post Benada, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur. 13. Babulal Meena Son Of Shri Baluram Meena, Resident Of Village Mundali, Post Achalpura, Tehsil Tunga-Bassi, District Jaipur. 14. Ghasi Lal Meena Son Of Shri Ramsahay Meena, Resident Of Village Shyampura, Post Mohanpura, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur. 15. Mulchand Meena Son Of Shri Ramsahay Meena, Resident Of Village Dudawala, Post Jeetawala, Post-Bassi, District Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 27/03/2025 1. The instant revision petition is preferred by the petitioners- defendants aggrieved from dismissal of application under Order [2025:RJ-JP:19741] (3 of 6) [CR-77/2025] VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC on 23.01.2025 in Civil Suit No.8/2025 by learned Additional Civil Judge No.15, Bassi, Jaipur Metropolitan-I Jaipur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners while referring Section 13 of the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1958’) submitted that in case of any dispute arising among the office bearers of the society and the members then the process as mandated under the law is required to be adopted and only Principal Civil Court, which is District Court has jurisdiction to hear the case but herein a suit was instituted by the plaintiffs before the Civil Court of lower rank and same is not maintainable. He further referred the provision of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and submitted that such frivolous suit are required to be rejected at very threshold. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the provisions of the Act of 1958. 4. Facts giving rise to institution of present revision indicate that the respondent Nos.1 to 15 have filed a civil suit for declaration, permanent injunction, cancellation of election and re- constitution of Committee for year 2024-25. During pendency of this civil suit, an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 and same was dismissed by the trial Court, hence, this revision petition. 5. Order VII Rule 11 CPC deals with ground for rejection of plaint aiming to prevent frivolous or defective suits. The provision enable the Court to reject a plaint if the conditions as enumerated are satisfied. In case of T. Arivandandam Vs. T. V. Satyapal & Another : (1977) 4 SCC 467, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held [2025:RJ-JP:19741] (4 of 6) [CR-77/2025] that if a plaint is manifestly vexatious and meritless and no disclosing a clear right to sue or barred by law, then same has to be rejected at very first hearing. In case of Saleem Bhai and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Ors : (2003) 1 SCC 557, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that to decide an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the averments in the plaint are germen and plea taken by defendant in written statement would be wholly irrelevant at this stage. 6. In case of Dahiben vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) through LRs and Ors. : 2020 SCC OnLine (SC) 562, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if no cause of action is disclosed in plaint, or the suit is barred by any law, then the Court would not permit protraction of proceeding and would necessary to put an end to such litigation, so that further judicial time may not be wasted. 7. Here in this case, the petitioners have referred Section 13 of the Act of 1958 which provides for provision of dissolution of societies and adjustment of their affairs. A perusal of plaint filed by respondents indicate that the plaintiffs have challenged constitution of an executive body after election and also restraining defendants from acting and utilizing the funds of the society. 8. We have considered the relief claimed by the plaintiffs and reproducing Section 13 of the Act of 1958 as under:- “13. Provisions for dissolution of societies and adjustment of their affairs: - Any number not less than two-third of the members of a society registered under this Act may determine that it shall be dissolved, and thereupon it shall stand dissolved forth with or at the time then agreed upon and all necessary steps shall be taken for the disposal and [2025:RJ-JP:19741] (5 of 6) [CR-77/2025] settlement of the property of the society and its claims and liabilities according to the rules and regulations of the said society, applicable thereto, if any, and, if not, then as the governing body, or a special committee formed to replace the governing body in respect of all matters affecting the winding- up of the affairs of the society, shall find expedient: Provided that- (i) in the event of any dispute arising among the governors, directors, trustees or members of the said governing body or, if it has been replaced by a special committee as aforesaid, among the members thereof or among the members of the society, the adjustment of its affairs shall be referred to the principal court of original civil jurisdiction of the district in which the principal office of the society is situated and the Court shall make such order in the matter as it shall deem requisite; (ii) any matter decided by tow-third of the members of the society or of the governing body thereof or of any special committee formed to replace the governing body for the purpose of winding up the affairs of the society present either in person or by proxy at any meeting of such society or governing body or special committee shall not be deemed to be a matter of dispute within the meaning of clause (i); (iii) no society shall be dissolved unless two-thirds of its members shall have expressed a wish for such dissolution by their votes delivered in person or by proxy at a special general meeting convened for the purpose; (iv) whenever any Government is a member of or a contributor to, or otherwise interested in any society registered under this Act, such society shall not be dissolved without the consent of such Government; and (v) nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect any provision contained in any instrument for the dissolution of such society. 9. Having considered aforesaid, the provision can be invoked when not less than 2/3rd of the members of the society may [2025:RJ-JP:19741] (6 of 6) [CR-77/2025] determine that the Society shall be dissolved. Thus, Section 13 provides for a specific contingency. 10. Here in this case, no such relief is claimed by the respondents-plaintiffs. The plaint does not disclose that the suit is filed under Section 13 of the Act of 1958. Instant suit is not filed for relief in accordance with Section 13 of the Act of 1958. 11. The trial Court after considering the objections has observed that the objection can be considered only after completion of pleadings and recording of evidence. The material on record clearly indicate that the plaint does not fall under Rule 11(d) of Order VII CPC and the trial Court has not committed any error while dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Therefore, the revision petition sans merits and is liable to be dismissed. 12. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the revision petition is hereby dismissed. 13. Miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/29