Delhi High Court - Orders
Manava Bharati Society Mussoorie And ... vs Shiv Dutt Bakshi & Ors on 11 December, 2025
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~O-31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 390/2025
MANAVA BHARATI SOCIETY MUSSOORIE AND DEHRADUN
& ANR. .....Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Arun Kumar Varma, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Kharanshu Rana, Adv.
versus
SHIV DUTT BAKSHI & ORS. .....Defendants
Through: Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 11.12.2025
I.A. 14666/2025 (exemption)
1. Plaintiff shall file legible/original/certified and clearer copies of exempted documents, compliant with practice rules, before the next date of hearing.
2. The application for exemption is allowed, subject to the plaintiff granting exemption of the documents filed, as and when required to do so, or filing the original documents at the stage of admission/denial.
3. The application stands disposed of.
CS(OS) 390/2025 and I.A. 19624/2025 (under Section 151 and 152 of CPC for recalling the order dated 25.07.2025)
4. This matter was called out on 30.05.2025 and Mr. Chowdhury, This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/12/2025 at 20:35:50 learned counsel for the defendant, appeared on advance instructions and raised an objection on the anvil of Section 13 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') regarding maintainability of the suit. The hearing was, thereafter, adjourned.
5. Then on 25.07.2025, Mr. Chowdhury raised another objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this Court since defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are residing outside Delhi. The aforesaid submission was noted, and the Court was, prima facie, inclined to dismiss the suit on the said grounds.
6. However, on the request of Mr. Varma, learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs, the hearing was adjourned.
7. Thereafter, I.A. 19624/2025 was filed, and various documents were brought on record to indicate that defendants No.1 and 2 reside within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Mr. Chowdhury, thereafter, was granted time to file the reply to the same.
8. Mr. Chowdhury has filed the reply and has opposed the said I.A. 19624/2025 to contend that the documents which are placed on record by the plaintiff are forged, and as of now, defendant No.1 and 2 are not residing in the jurisdiction of this Court. Additionally, the objections with respect to Section 13 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 are also reiterated by him while placing reliance on the decision in Terapalli Dyvasahata Kumar v. S.M. Kantha Raju.1
9. At the outset, it is noted that the suit is at the initial stage and summons have not been issued.
10. In view of the aforesaid, it needs to be considered whether, on the 1 2018 11 SCC 769 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/12/2025 at 20:35:50 basis of the said decision, the suit deserves to be rejected at this stage.
11. Much emphasis has been laid by Mr. Chowdhury on Paragraphs No. 12, 13, 16 and 17 of Terapalli Dyvasahata Kumar. Paragraphs no. 12 and 17 of the said decision are extracted as under:
12. It will be apparent that the scheme of the Societies Registration Act on the one hand, and that of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Act and the consolidating Act of 2001 on the other is completely different.
On the one hand, the 1860 Act refers the dispute that arises under Section 13 only to the Principal Court of Original Civil Jurisdiction of the district in which the chief building of the society is situate. Under this Act therefore, jurisdiction is confined to one court and one court only: that is the Principal Court of Original Civil Jurisdiction where the actual physical main building of the society is situate. On the other hand, Section 11 of the 1940 Act and Section 23 of the 2001 Act enable the person aggrieved to file an application in the "District Court concerned". It is this expression that has to be construed by this Court in the present case.
****
17. This judgment would be relevant if the pari materia provision under Section 13 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 had fallen for decision. As has been pointed out above, this provision gives only one court jurisdiction -- the Principal Court of Original Civil Jurisdiction of the district in which the chief building of the society is situate, somewhat like Section 10-F of the Companies Act. Inasmuch as this section is completely distinct from Section 23 of the 2001 Act and Section 11 of the earlier Telangana Act, it is clear that the judgment in James Chadwick case [National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd., (1953) 1 SCC 794 : 1953 SCR 1028 : AIR 1953 SC 357] squarely applies to the present case, and not the aforesaid judgment.
12. According to Mr. Chowdhury, a plain reading of Section 13 of the Act would indicate that jurisdiction is vested exclusively in the Principal Court of Original Civil Jurisdiction of the district in which the chief building of the society is situated, and that the present suit ought to have been instituted only before the said Court.
13. This Court, however, upon a careful reading of the aforesaid This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/12/2025 at 20:35:50 judgment, finds that the controversy before the Supreme Court in Terapalli Dyvasahata Kumar, essentially pertained to the interpretation of Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001. The proceedings in the said case had been initiated under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, before the Court concerned, and it was in that statutory backdrop that the issue of jurisdiction had arisen. When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the Court, for the purpose of laying down the governing principle, examined the said provision in juxtaposition with other pari materia and analogous enactments dealing with similar jurisdictional questions.
14. In paragraph 12 of the decision, the Supreme Court has categorically observed that the scheme of the Act is entirely distinct from that of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1940, and the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001. It was in this limited contextual framework that the Court noted that under the Act, disputes falling within Section 13 are referable only to the Principal Court of Original Civil Jurisdiction of the district where the chief building of the society is situated, thereby conferring jurisdiction on one Court alone.
15. The aforesaid observations cannot be read as laying down a proposition that all disputes, including those dehors the scope and ambit of Section 13 of the Act, must necessarily be adjudicated by the said Court alone. The exposition propounded by the Supreme Court was confined to delineating the jurisdictional scheme under Section 13 of Act, in contrast with the broader expressions employed in Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 and Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1940.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/12/2025 at 20:35:50
16. In the present case, a careful examination of the reliefs claimed would demonstrate that the dispute does not essentially or exclusively arise under Section 13 of the Act. Consequently, the reliance placed by the defendant on the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court, at this stage, is misplaced and does not advance the defendant's objection to jurisdiction.
17. In any event, all jurisdictional objections remain open to be urged and considered at the appropriate stage after issuance of summons and upon the matter being fully progressed.
18. As regards the plea relating to the residence of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 at Delhi, the parties are at serious variance. While the plaintiff asserts that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are residents of the concerned place, the defendants categorically deny the said assertion. Both sides have placed certain documents on record in support of their respective stands, which would require due examination and appreciation at a later stage.
19. In these circumstances, and while reserving all objections raised by Mr. Chowdhury, this Court is of the considered view that it is appropriate to issue a summons in the matter.
20. The plaint be registered as a suit. Issue summons. Mr. Chowdhury, learned counsel on behalf of the defendants, is present. He confirms the receipt of the suit paperbook and waives the right of formal service of summons.
21. Written statement(s) shall be filed within thirty days from today. The defendants shall also file affidavits of admission/denial of the documents filed by the plaintiffs, failing which the written statements shall not be taken on record.
22. The plaintiffs are at liberty to file replications thereto within thirty This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/12/2025 at 20:35:50 days after filing of the written statements. The replications shall be accompanied by affidavits of admission/denial in respect of the documents filed by the defendant, failing which the replications shall not be taken on record.
23. It is made clear that any unjustified denial of documents may lead to an order of costs against the concerned party.
24. Any party seeking inspection of documents may do so in accordance with the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
25. List before the learned Joint Registrar for completion of service and pleadings, marking of exhibits and admission/denial of documents on 08.04.2026.
I.A. 14665/2025 (injunction)
26. Issue notice.
27. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant accepts notice. Let him take instructions and to file a reply.
28. List on 08.04.2026 before Joint Registrar.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J DECEMBER 11, 2025/JYH/MJ This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/12/2025 at 20:35:50