AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.L. Manjunath, J.—Petitioners are the Defendants in O.S. No. 221 of 2001 on the file of the First Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gulbarga. The first Respondent is the Plaintiff in the suit. Remaining Respondents are the Defendants.
In the suit, the Petitioners filed an application under Order 29, Rule 1 CPC requesting the Court to dismiss the suit as not maintainable and the application filed by the Petitioner has been dismissed by the Court below. Challenging the correctness of the order of the Trial Court, the present writ petition is filed.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
The short question that arises for consideration by this Court in this writ petition is:
Whether Provisions of Order 29, Rule 1 CPC can be made applicable to the Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960? and whether the application of the Petitioner can be allowed only on the ground that the Petitioners'' Society has become defunct?
Order 29, Rule 1 CPC reads as hereunder:
Subscription and verification of pleading:
In suits by or against Corporation, any pleading may be signed and verified on behalf of the Corporation by the Secretary or by any Director or other Principal Officer of the Corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case.
From the plain reading of Order 29, Rule 1 CPC it is clear to me that the same is applicable to a suit instituted by or against the Corporation registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. Therefore, by invoking the provisions under Order 29, Rule 1 CPC the Petitioner cannot request the Court to dismiss the suit instituted by a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. Accordingly, the above point No. 1 is held negative.
In regard to the second point is concerned whether a society is defunct or not and whether a society is not functioning can maintain a suit or not has to be adjudicated by a Court only after giving an opportunity to both the parties to let in evidence.
In the instant case, the Trial Court has rightly held that the said question has to be verified after giving opportunity to both the sides.
In the circumstances, I do not see any error committed by the Court below in rejecting the application of the Court below.
In the result, the petition is dismissed.