- (1.) Appellant is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 21 of 1860. Five persons of whom some are respondents before us instituted a suit in the court of Civil Judge, Varanasi challenging the election of the Managing Committee and other elected officers of the appellant and asked for rendition of accounts. This suit of 1981 is still pending. We are now concerned with the correctness of the finding on the preliminary issue as to whether such a suit is maintainable in the civil court. The defendants' objection to the maintainability is grounded upon the provisions contained in S. 23 and 25 of the Registration Act. The courts below have taken the view that the suit is not barred. That is why the defendants are here by special leave.
(2.) A litigant having a grievance of a civil nature has, independently of any statute, a right to institute a suit in the civil court unless its cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. The position is well settled that exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil court is not to be readily inferred and such exclusion must be either express or implied.
(3.) Reliance has been placed by Mr Mukhoty before us on the ratio of the Constitution bench decision of this court in K. S. Venkataraman and Co. v. State of Madras where reference has been made to the Privycouncil case in Raleigh Investment Co. Ltd. v. governor-General in council. It has been laid down that the civil court's jurisdiction would be presumed unless the contrary is indicated. Mr Mukhoty has also relied a upon two other decisions being Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar and Dhulabhai v. State of M. P. The legal position thus seems to be clear and it is not necessary to quote further authorities.;