Guru Nanak Khalsa College, Yamuna Nagar vs Dr. A.S. Malhotra

L.N. Mittal, J.—Defendant no. 1 Guru Nanak Khalsa College by filing this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has assailed order dated 23.11.2009, Annexure P/8 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri thereby dismissing application (Annexure P/6) moved by defendant no. 1 - petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC (in short, CPC) for rejection of the plaint. Suit was initially filed by four plaintiffs for directing defendants no. 2 to 7 to render account of income and expenditure of defendant no. 1 - College for the last three years and for other reliefs. However, plaintiffs no. 1 to 3 withdrew the suit and now plaintiff no. 4 - respondent Dr. AS Malhotra is the sole plaintiff before the trial court. Case of defendant no. 1 - petitioner in application Annexure P/6 is that respondent has no locus standi to file the suit because he has no concern with defendant no. 1 - College or its Managing Committee.

I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent, now the sole plaintiff, has no concern with the Managing Committee of the College and therefore, he has no locus standi to pursue the suit.

On the other hand, counsel for respondent contended that respondent had deposited Rs. 1000/- to become Member of the Managing Committee of the College and therefore, respondent has locus standi to continue and pursue the suit.

I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Perusal of plaint Annexure P/1 reveals that no plea has been taken therein that respondent (plaintiff no. 4) had deposited Rs. 1000/- to become Member of the Managing Committee. Consequently, contention raised by counsel for the respondent in this regard being beyond pleadings cannot be entertained. The trial court also gravely erred in accepting the said plea of the respondent because the said plea could not be accepted being beyond pleadings. A new case beyond pleadings cannot be made out for the respondent-plaintiff.

It is, thus, apparent that respondent, now the sole plaintiff, has no locus standi to continue and pursue the suit, having no concern with the petitioner-College or its Managing Committee. Consequently, the plaint is liable to rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The impugned order of the trial court is patently perverse and illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P/8 passed by the trial court is set aside. Application Annexure P/6 moved by defendant no. 1 - petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is allowed and the plaint stands rejected.