GIRIDHAR Vs. BOWRING INSTITUTEM, BENGALURU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in the suits O.S.Nos. 3924/2017, 4030/2017, 4033/2017 and 4362/2017 on the file of the supraXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, have filed these appeals challenging the order dated 14.12.2017 rejecting the plaints in their suits under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Civil Procedure Code (for short 'CPC').

(2.) The plaintiffs are the members of the defendant society. At the inception they were inducted as temporary members and thereafter they were made permanent in a decision taken by the Special General Body Meeting held on 20.4.2007. Thereafter, the plaintiffs participated in all the meetings, discussions, etc., and also contested in the elections. But, all of a sudden, the managing committee of the defendant appointed an enquiry committee to enquire into the lapses and irregularities said to have been committed by the plaintiffs. The report given by the committee was placed in its Special General Body Meeting held on 21.4.2013. The plaintiffs have stated that initiation of enquiry against them was void ab initio and without any authority. The plaintiffs were called upon to pay a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- as difference amount with regard to membership. They were required to pay the said amount within 90 days from the date of the said notice. Therefore, the plaintiffs and some other members, in all 30 in number filed a suit O.S.25936/2013 for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant society. During the pendency of the said suit, the defendant agreed to call for a Special General Body Meeting to discuss the grievances of the plaintiffs and other persons. For these reasons, all those persons who had filed the suit made application under Order supraIII Rule 1 (3) CPC for withdrawing the suit seeking liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action. The court after hearing both sides allowed the said application observing that the defendant should convene a Special General Body Meeting and take a decision. The plaintiffs were permitted to withdraw their suit and liberty was given to them to file fresh suit on the same cause of action. This order was passed on 14.3.2017. Accordingly, a meeting was called on 21.4.2017. The plaintiffs participated in the Special General Body Meeting, but, they state they did not come to know as to what transpired in the said meeting and what resolution was passed. No serious discussion was held in the said meeting with regard to grievance of the plaintiffs and other members who had initiated the suit. Therefore, some of the members out of 30 brought another suit claiming the reliefs similar to the one they had claimed in the former suit.

(3.) Defendant got filed an application I.A.no.3 under Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC to reject the plaint as the suit was barred under law. The trial court allowed this application and came to conclusion that the suit was otherwise not maintainable as it was barred by limitation and rejected the plaint consequently. Therefore, these appeals.