Authority: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Jammu

Order Date: 07 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Nitin Malhotra (62) and Harish Choudhary (56), represented by Sr. Advocates Vikas Mangotra and Rajat Jamwal.
  • Respondent: Arya Pratinidhi Sabha J&K, represented by Vice President Arun Kumar Gupta, Sr. Advocate Rakesh Chargotra and Advocate Sabhya Gandhi.
  • Civil suit titled “Arya Pratinidhi Sabha v. Harish Choudhary and another” filed in February 2023 seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the petitioners concerning Arya Samaj Mandir, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu.
  • Petitioners filed a revision petition (CR No. 28/2025, CM No. 4983/2025) challenging the trial court’s order dated 10 March 2025 that dismissed their application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint.
  • Grounds of challenge: alleged deregistration of the respondent society (letter dated 29‑12‑2023 from Registrar of Societies, and communication dated 08‑09‑2023 stating deregistration effective 20‑12‑2021), claim that Vice President Arun Kumar Gupta was not an office‑bearer or member, and reliance on RTI communication dated 06‑04‑2004 stating the society was non‑operational.
  • Respondent argued that under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only the averments in the plaint and annexed documents may be considered; the society’s registration status is a defence matter and cannot be used to reject the plaint. Cited the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019, which deems certificates issued under the J&K Societies Registration Act as issued under the Central Act.
  • Both sides cited Supreme Court precedents: petitioners relied on T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977), Church of Christ Charitable Trust (2012), P. Nazeer v. Salafi Trust (2022), and a coordinate bench decision F2Fun and Fitness Pvt. Ltd. v. Golden Globe Fitness Pvt. Ltd. (2018). Respondent relied on Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner (2004) and R.K. Roja v. U.S. Rayudu (2016).
  • The trial court had also directed the Assistant Director (Development), Department of Industries and Commerce, Jammu to produce the original registration certificate (No. 99 of 1968 dated 16‑10‑1968), which was produced on 21‑04‑2026.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court held that the petitioners’ plea regarding the respondent’s legal status is a defence matter outside the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
  • It affirmed the settled principle that an application for rejection of a plaint must be decided solely on the plaint’s averments.
  • Consequently, the trial court’s dismissal of the petitioners’ Order VII Rule 11 application was upheld.
  • The revision petition was dismissed as “devoid of merit” and the record produced by Deputy Advocate General Dewakar Sharma was ordered to be returned.

Topics: Civil Procedure; Societies Registration; Locus Standi