ACARYA DHRUVANANDA AVADHUTA Vs. ACARYA MANTRESHVARANANDA AVADHUTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the order dated September 10, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Additional Court at Purulia in Title Suit No. 96 of 2009 thereby rejecting the petition filed by the defendant Nos. 1 & 3 for rejection of the plaint.

(2.) The plaintiffs/opposite parties filed the Title Suit No. 96 of 2009 praying for a decree of declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant/petitioner and other proforma opposite parties. The plaintiffs/petitioners prayed for a decree for declaration that the so-called election of the Central Purodha Board of Ananda Marga dated September 3, 2003 and the alleged bye-election of the Central Purodha board of Ananda Marga dated May, 2007-2008 are illegal, void and ab initio, for declaration that the defendants are not the elected members of the Central Purodha Board of Ananda Marga for the term 2004-2009, for declaration that the General Election of Central Purodha Board of Ananda Marga for the term 2009 -2014 be held with proper notice, etc. and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 from acting as members of the Central Purodha Board of Ananda Marga, etc. At the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiffs/opposite parties filed a petition for temporary injunction and the defendants were to file an objection against the petition for temporary injunction. The defendant Nos. 1 & 3 filed a petition for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiffs filed the suit for various types of declaration and permanent injunction and the suit valuation being made for Rs. 65,000/-, the plaintiffs were required to pay court fees of Rs. 17,120/- but they paid court fees of Rs. 110/- only and so an amount of balance court fees of Rs. 17,010/- was to be paid. The plaintiffs should be directed to pay the deficit court fees accordingly.

(3.) The defendant Nos. 1 & 3 also contended that the suit was filed on 04.08.2009 and the learned Trial Judge directed the plaintiffs to take necessary steps for issuance of summons upon the plaintiffs as per amended provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs having not complied with such directions specially with regard to the provisions of Order 5 Rule 1, Order 5 Rule 9(1), Order 7 Rule 9 and Order 7 Rule 11(f) of the C.P.C. for non-compliance of such provisions; the plaint should be rejected. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge has rejected the application for rejection of the plaint. Being aggrieved, the defendant/petitioner has preferred thisapplication.