HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CR No. 31/2025 CM No. 5442/2025 Balbir Singh Jamwal & Ors. …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Ankush Manhas, Advocate. Vs Satpal Sharma .…. Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 04.09.2025 1. The petitioners, through the medium of the present petition, have challenged order dated 04.08.2025 passed by learned 2nd Civil Subordinate Judge (Passenger Tax), Jammu whereby application of the petitioners/defendants seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused record of the case. 3. It appears that the respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit before the learned trial court seeking a declaration that committee constituted by the defendants in the name of Jammu City and District Badminton Association (JCDBA) is contrary to the Bye Laws of the Association and, as such, is illegal, null and void; with a further relief of mandatory injunction, directing the defendants to Sr. No. 76 2 CR No. 31/2025 hold elections in accordance with the Constitution of the Association by appointing a neutral Returning Officer with a consequential relief that self appointed persons for conducting day to day affairs of the Association be restrained from performing the functions. 4. It appears that during pendency of the suit, with the mutual consent of the parties, the learned trial court, vide order dated 24.05.2023 appointed Mr. Nonu S. Khera, Advocate as the Returning Officer to conduct the elections of Jammu City and District Badminton Association (JCDBA). Pursuant to the said order, it seems that the election was conducted under the supervision of the Returning Officer appointed by the court whereafter he has submitted his report before the trial court. 5. At this stage, the petitioners/defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the cause of action had ceased to exist, as the election had already been conducted under a neutral Returning Officer appointed by the court. 6. The learned trial court, by virtue of the impugned order, has dismissed the application of the defendants primarily on the ground that the report of the Returning Officer is yet to be accepted by the court because the plaintiffs have filed objections to the said report, as such, the cause of action still subsists. 7. The trial court may be right in observing that only because of the subsequent event of holding of elections under the supervision 3 CR No. 31/2025 of the neutral Returning Officer, it cannot be stated that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. Strictly speaking the plaint cannot be rejected by application of provisions contained in Order VII Rule 11 (a) of the CPC. This is so because at the time of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 only the contents of the plaint are to be taken into account by a civil court and not what has transpired after the filing of the suit. 8. However, one thing is clear that the trial court has to take into account the subsequent events which may render the suit infructuous. So while the trial court could not have exercised the powers under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to reject the plaint but certainly it had the power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to consider the prayer of the defendants with regard to the fate of the suit in light of the subsequent development of holding of elections under the supervision of the neutral Returning Officer appointed by the court. 9. 9. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and while upholding the order passed by the learned trial court, a liberty is given to the petitioners/defendants to move an application under section 151 of the CPC before the learned trial court seeking disposal of the suit in light of the report submitted by the Returning Officer appointed by the court. 10. If and when such an application is made by the petitioners/defendants before the trial court, the same shall be 4 CR No. 31/2025 considered and decided by the said court expeditiously prior to proceed further in the suit. 11. Disposed of, accordingly. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 04.09.2025 Shivalee Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Shivalee Khajuria 2025.09.09 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Jammu