The Assam Sahitya Sabha And 8 Ors. vs Ananta Ram Medhi
- Court
- Gauhati High Court
1
GAHC010175612026
2026:GAU-AS:16096
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
CRP(IO)/398/2026
1. The Assam Sahitya Sabha,
Registered Under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860, Having Its
Registered Head Office At Chandra Kanta
Handique Bhavan, Mithapukhuri Road,
Atilagaon, Jorhat-785001,
District-Jorhat, Assam And Having Its
Administrative Office At Bhagawati Prasad
Baruah Bhavan, Ambari, Guwahati-
781001,
District-Kamrup(M), Assam, Represented
By Its Chief Secretary.
2. The President of Assam Sahitya Sabha,
Having Its Registered Head Office At
Chandra Kanta Handique Bhavan,
Mithapukhuri Road,
Atilagaon, Jorhat-785001,
District-Jorhat, Assam And Having Its
Administrative Office At Bhagawati Prasad
Baruah Bhavan, Ambari,
Guwahati-781001,
District-Kamrup(M), Assam.
3. The Chief Secretary of Assam Sahitya
Sabha, Having Its Registered Head Office
At Chandra Kanta Handique Bhavan,
CRP(IO)/398/2026 Page 1
2
Mithapukhuri Road,
Atilagaon, Jorhat-785001,
District-Jorhat, Assam And Having Its
Administrative Office At Bhagawati Prasad
Baruah Bhavan, Ambari,
Guwahati-781001,
District-Kamrup(M), Assam.
4. Golaghat Zila Sahitya Sabha, Golaghat,
Assam, Represented By Its Secretary
Dulal Chandra Das.
5. The President of Golaghat Zila Sahitya
Sabha,
R/o-Borpathar Town,
Ward No. 5,
District- Golaghat,
Pin-785602.
6. The Secretary of Golaghat Zila Sahitya
Sabha, Dulal Chandra Das,
R/o-Dayang Senior Secondary School,
Merapani,
District- Golaghat,
P.O.-Merapani, Pin-785705.
7. Adoroni Samiti,
th
5 Executive of Assam Sahitya Sabha,
For The Session 2025-27 And Pratinidhi
Sabha of the Last Pancharatna Guwahati
Adhibexon,
Address-Birangana Satisadhani
Kalakhetra,
Golaghat-785602.
Represented By Its Secretary.
8. Dr. Debajit Phukan,
President of Adoroni Samiti,
th
5 Executive of Assam Sahitya Sabha,
CRP(IO)/398/2026 Page 2
3
For The Session 2025-27 And Pratinidhi
Sabha of the Last Pancharatna Guwahati
Adhibexon,
Address-Golaghat-Town.
9. Dulal Ch. Das,
General Secretary of Adoroni Samiti
th
5 Executive of Assam Sahitya Sabha,
For The Session 2025-27 And Pratinidhi
Sabha of the Last Pancharatna Guwahati
Adhibexon,
R/o Dayang Senior Secondary School,
Merapani,
District-Golaghat,
P.O.- Merapani,
Pin-785705.
…..Petitioners
-Versus-
1. Ananta Ram Medhi,
S/o- Late Amrit Ch. Medhi,
R/o-Tarali Path,
House No.-23, J.P.Agarwala Road, Panjabari,
Guwahati,
Pin-781037,
District-Kamrup(M), Assam.
……Respondent
For Petitioners Mr. S. P. Roy,Advocate
:
For Respondents Mr.A.R. Medhi, Respondent-in-person
:
Date of Hearing 28.08.2026
:
03.11.2026
Date of Judgment :
BEFORE
CRP(IO)/398/2026 Page 3
4
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
[1] Heard Mr. S. P. Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also
heard Mr. A.R. Medhi, the respondent appearing in person.
[2] This CRP(I/O) has been registered on filing of an application under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners, impugning
the order dated 25.05.2026 passed by the Court of learned Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati in Title Suit No.
328/2026. The petitioners have also impugned the order dated
05.06.2026 passed in the aforesaid suit by the Trial Court, whereby
it rejected the petitions bearing Nos. 3370/26, 3371/26, and
3373/26 filed under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 9 and
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying for
rejection of the plaint filed in Title Suit No. 328/2026.
[3] The petitioners have also impugned the order dated 06.06.2026
passed in Misc.(J) Case No. 599/2026 arising out of Title Suit No.
328/2026 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior
Division) No. 1, Kamrup (Metro), whereby it restrained the present
petitioners from holding the Pratinidhi Sabha on 07.06.2026 at
Birangana Sati Sadhani Kalakshetra, Golaghat, till disposal of Title
Suit No. 328/2026.
[4] The facts relevant for consideration of the instant CRP(I/O), in brief,
are that the present respondent, namely Shri Ananta Ram Medhi,
CRP(IO)/398/2026 Page 4
5
claiming himself to be a life member of the Assam Sahitya Sabha,as
plaintiff, had filed a title suit bearing T.S. No. 328/2026 before the
Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup (Metro)
at Guwahati, praying for declaratory reliefs to the effect that the
proposed Pratinidhi Sabha of the petitioners' organization, namely,
the Assam Sahitya Sabha, which was scheduled to be held on
07.06.2026, is illegal and unlawful, as well as some other
declaratory relief and permanent injunction restraining the present
petitioners from holding the said Pratinidhi Sabha on 07.06.2026.
[5] Along with the aforesaid title suit, the present respondent also filed
an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking temporary
injunction against the present petitioners from holding the
aforementioned Pratinidhi Sabha during the pendency of Title Suit
No. 328/2026. The said application was registered as Misc.(J) Case
No. 599/2026.
[6] In Title Suit No. 328/2026, by its order dated 25.05.2026, the Trial
Court issued summons to the present petitioners, who are the
defendants in the said suit, and fixed the suit on 03.06.2026 for
service report and for filing of the written statement. Similarly, in
Misc.(J) Case No. 599/2026, also by its order dated 25.05.2026, the
Trial Court issued notice to the opposite parties and fixed the next
date on 03.06.2026.
[7] On 03.06.2026, the petitioners, namely, the Assam Sahitya Sabha,
Shri Debojit Bora, and Dr. Basanta Kumar Goswami filed an
CRP(IO)/398/2026 Page 5
6
application under Order XIV Rule 2(1) of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 before the Trial Court, raising the question of
maintainability of the aforementioned suit and praying for framing of
preliminary issues in the said suit.
[8] On the same day, the defendant No. 2, namely, Shri Debojit Bora,
and the defendant No. 3, namely, Shri Basanta Kumar Goswami,
also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, praying for rejection of the plaint in Title Suit No.
328/2026, raising the question of maintainability of the suit as well
as raising the plea of limitation as well as jurisdictional bar. The
application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 filed by defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 3 was registered
as Petition No. 3373/2026.
[9] Similar application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure was also filed by defendant No. 4, defendant No. 5, and
defendant No. 6; the said application was registered as Petition No.
3374/2026. The other defendants, namely, defendant Nos. 7, 8, and
9, also filed a similar petition, which was registered as Petition No.
3375/26.
[10] The defendants also raised the plea before the Trial Court that the
plaintiff, being an advocate, cannot appear in person in the suit
without written permission from the Court under Section 32 of the
Advocates Act, 1961. However, the Trial Court allowed the present
respondent to plead before it as plaintiff in person and, by the order
dated 05.06.2026 passed in Title Suit No. 328/2026, it rejected the
CRP(IO)/398/2026 Page 6
7
petitions bearing Nos. 3370/2026, 3371/2026, and 3373/2026 filed
by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 9 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
[11] The Trial Court, by its order dated 06.06.2026 passed in Misc.(J)
Case No. 599/2026, also granted temporary injunction in favour of
the respondent after hearing both sides and restrained the present
petitioners from holding the Pratinidhi Sabha of the Asam Sahitya
Sabha on 07.06.2026 at Birangana Sati Sadhani Kalakshetra,
Golaghat, till the disposal of Title Suit No. 328/2026.
[12] Mr. S.P. Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted
that the Trial Court has erred in passing the order dated 25.05.2026
in Title Suit No. 328/2026 by issuing summons to the defendants
without taking into consideration the fact that Title Suit No.
328/2026 has been filed by the present respondent in a
representative capacity, and no leave for filing the said suit was
obtained by the respondent before filing the said suit under Order I
Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
[13] He submits that in paragraph No. 17 of the plaint filed by the
present respondent in Title Suit No. 328/2026, he has categorically
pleaded that:
"However, notwithstanding that letter, the President and Secretary
of Assam Sahitya Sabha have illegally persisted in their attempt to
amend the Constitution with ulterior motives, which is deeply
unfortunate to the people of Assam and the members of Assam
Sahitya Sabha."
CRP(IO)/398/2026 Page 7
8
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the pleading in
paragraph No. 17 of the plaint indicates that the respondent had
filed the suit for the people of Assam and the members of Asam
Sahitya Sabha in a representative capacity.
[14] He further submits that in paragraph No. 19 of the plaint, the
respondent has also pleaded as follows:
"If the defendants are not restrained by granting of a permanent
injunction, the plaintiff as well as the people of Assam and members
of Assam Sahitya Sabha will suffer irreparable loss and injury, and
the glorious reputation of Assam Sahitya Sabha as a prominent
cultural and literary organisation of the State will be irreversibly
damaged."
He submits that the said averment in paragraph No. 19 of the plaint
also indicates that the aforesaid suit has been filed by the present
respondent in a representative capacity. He submits that the Trial
Court erred in failing to ascertain the representative nature of the
suit and the fact that the plaintiff has not complied with the
mandatory procedural requirement of seeking leave of the Court
under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, before
filing a representative suit.
[15] The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Trial
Court also failed to take into consideration that various
organisations like Dimoria Anchalik Puberun Swarna Shakha of
Assam Sahitya Sabha, Guwahati Ukil Samaj Swarna Shakha, Kamrup
Zila Sahitya Sabha, and individuals like Ashwini Kumar Talukdar and
CRP(IO)/398/2026 Page 8
9
Biplob Talukdar have also filed applications under Order I Rule 8A of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for impleading them as parties in
Title Suit No. 328/2026, which itself indicate to the representative
nature of the suit filed by the present respondent.
[16] He submits that there is flagrant violation of the statutory provisions
contained in Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by
the Trial Court as well as by the respondent, and as such, this is a
fit case where the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court may
be quashed and reversed by this Court in exercise of its supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
[17] The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that since
Title Suit No. 328/2026 is itself not maintainable for want of
compliance with statutory provisions contained in Order I Rule 8 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as such no relief may be granted
in the Misc. Case arising out of the said Title Suit, and as such, the
temporary injunction granted against the present petitioners by
order dated 06.06.2026 passed in Misc.(J) Case No. 599/2026 is
also liable to be set aside and quashed.
[18] In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the
petitioners has cited the following rulings:
a) Radhey Shyam and Another v. Chhabi Nath and
Others, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423 ;
b) Khargeswar Choudhury and Another v. Isfaq
Hussain and Others, reported in (2001) 1 GLT 692;
CRP(IO)/398/2026 Page 9
10
c) Sangeeta Sinha v. Bhawna Bhardwaj and Others,
reported in 2025 AIR (SC) 1806;
d) Asma Latif and Another v. Shabbir Ahmad and
Others, reported in (2024) 4 SCC 696 ;
e) Abdul Qadir Mohammad Helal Ali v. Sri Maneshwar
Brahma, reported in 2026 Supreme (Gau) 1209 ;
f) Ram Chander Sunda v. Union of India, reported in
1999 Supreme (SC) 14 ;
[19] On the other hand, Mr. A.R. Medhi, the respondent appearing in
person, has submitted that there is no infirmity in the orders passed
by the Trial Court which have been impugned by the petitioners in
this CRP(I/O). He submits that he is a life member of Assam Sahitya
Sabha, and in his capacity as a life member of Assam Sahitya
Sabha, he has filed Title Suit No. 328/2026 as he is aggrieved by
the illegal action of the petitioners in taking decisions against the
provisions contained in the Constitution of Assam Sahitya Sabha in
deciding to hold the Pratinidhi Sabha on 07.06.2026 at Golaghat.
[20] He submits that since the said decision is illegal and contrary to the
provisions contained in the Constitution of the Assam Sahitya
Sabha, naturally the members of Assam Sahitya Sabha as well as
the people of Assam would be aggrieved by such wrong decision.
However, he submits that the respondent (the plaintiff), being
himself a life member of Asam Sahitya Sabha, has filed the Title Suit
No. 328/2026 in his individual capacity as a life member of Asam
Sahitya Sabha and not in a representative capacity. As such, the
CRP(IO)/398/2026 Page 10
11
question of taking leave under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, does not arise.
[21] The respondent appearing in person has further submitted that the
Trial Court has rightly allowed him to plead his own case before it
and that the bar contained in Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961
is not applicable to his case.
[22] The respondent in person further submits that the order dated
06.06.2026 passed in Misc.(J) Case No. 599/2026, whereby
temporary injunction has been granted in favour of the present
respondent, was passed by the Trial Court under Order XXXIX Rule
1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He submits that the
said order being an appealable order under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the application under Article 227
of the Constitution of India impugning such an injunction order is
not maintainable.
[23] The respondent appearing in person has further submitted that the
Trial Court has rightly dismissed the petitions filed by the present
petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 praying for rejection of the plaint, as no ground for such
rejection could be made out by the present petitioners. He submits
that the Trial Court has rightly held that the Constitution of Asam
Sahitya Sabha, which is a registered society under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860, cannot override the statutory provisions
contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which gives the
Court of Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup(Metro)
CRP(IO)/398/2026 Page 11
12
the jurisdiction to adjudicate Title Suit No. 328/2026. He, therefore,
submits that the present CRP(I/O) filed by the petitioners is liable to
be dismissed.
[24] In support of his submission, the respondent appearing in person
has cited following rulings:
a) P. Suresh v. D. Kalaivani and Others [Judgment
dated 03.02.2026 in Civil Appeal No. 739 of 2026
in connection with Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 20423/2025]
b) Hari Ram v. Jyoti Prasad and Another, reported in
(2011) 2 SCC 682
c) Anil Kumar Jain and Another v. Bhagwan Mahaveer
Memorial Samiti and Others [Judgment dated
15.05.2023 in RFA No. 279/2019 of the High Court
of Delhi]
d) Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Company
Limited and Another [Judgment dated 24.01.2003
in Civil Appeal No. 557/2003]
e) Mohammed Ali v. V. Jaya and Others [Judgment
dated 11 July, 2022 in Civil Appeal No. 4113 of
2022]
f) Pratheek Kumar v. B.R. Madhusudhan [High Court
of Karnataka's judgment dated 30.01.2026 in WP
No. 21131 of 2019]
CRP(IO)/398/2026 Page 12
13
[25] I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for
both sides and have gone through the materials available on record.
I have also gone through the rulings cited by learned counsel for
both sides in support of their respective submissions.
[26] On perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that the
present respondent, namely Shri Ananta Ram Medhi, has instituted
Title Suit No. 328/2026 in his personal capacity as one of the life
members of Assam Sahitya Sabha as well as Hiteishi member of the
said organisation. It also appears that in the suit, apart from the
Assam Sahitya Sabha and its office-bearers, the office-bearers of
Golaghat Zila Sahitya Sabha and the office-bearers of some of the
committees constituted by the Assam Sahitya Sabha have been
made as defendants. In total, nine numbers of defendants have
been made party in the suit filed by the present respondent.
[27] First of all, let us discuss as to whether the respondent may appear
in person and may plead before the Trial Court as plaintiff without
engaging an advocate.
[28] Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961 is reproduced hereinbelow for
the sake of convenience:
"32. Power of Court to permit appearances in particular
cases. —Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, any
court, authority, or person may permit any person, not enrolled as
an advocate under this Act, to appear before it or him in any
particular case."
CRP(IO)/398/2026 Page 13
14
[29] It is pertinent to remember that Section 32 of the Advocates Act,
1961 is included in Chapter IV of the said Act, which deals with the
provisions relating to right to practice. Section 29 of the Advocates
Act recognizes advocates to be the only class of persons entitled to
practice law. As such, Section 32 of the said Act is an enabling
exception that allows a court to permit a non-advocate to appear for
someone else in a particular case. However, it does not restrict the
right of a litigant to present and argue his own case before a court
of law.
[30] Order III Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 empowers a
party in person to appear, file applications, or act in any court. A
party appearing in person while arguing or pleading in their own
case may not be regarded as “practicing law” within the meaning of
the Advocates Act, 1961 so as to incur the wrath of the bar provided
in Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961. A litigant's right to present
and argue his own case before the court stems directly from Order
III Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as well as from the
well-established principles of natural justice. As such, this Court
finds no error in the Trial Court allowing the respondent to appear
and to plead before it in person in Title Suit No. 328/2026.
[31] On perusal of the Petition Nos. 3372/2026, 3370/2026, and
3371/2026 filed by the present petitioners under Order VII Rule 11
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it appears that the main
ground for seeking rejection of the plaint is that the Court of
Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup (Metro), as per
the contention of the petitioners, does not have the jurisdiction to
CRP(IO)/398/2026 Page 14
15
entertain the said suit as same is barred by Part 13(1) of the
Constitution of Assam Sahitya Sabha, which limits the jurisdiction for
all litigation against Asam Sahitya Sabha to the courts at Jorhat.
[32] The Trial Court, by the impugned order dated 05.06.2026 passed in
Title Suit No. 328/2026, has held that the jurisdiction of the Civil
Court cannot be ousted by the provisions of the bye-laws of a
registered society like that of the Assam Sahitya Sabha, and it is
governed by the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908.
[33] This Court is in agreement with the observations made by the Trial
Court in this regard. Under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, Civil Courts have inherent and plenary jurisdiction to try all
suits of a civil nature, unless their cognizance is expressly or
impliedly barred by statute. The ouster of jurisdiction requires
legislative authority. A bar on civil court's jurisdiction can only be
imposed by an Act of Parliament or by State Legislature. The bye-
laws of a society are akin to the internal rules, articles of
association, or a contract binding members inter se. However, same
cannot oust the jurisdiction of a Civil Court which is conferred on it
by the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. As
such, this Court does not find any infirmity in the Trial Court holding
that the jurisdiction of a Civil Court cannot be ousted by the bye-
laws (Constitution) of the Assam Sahitya Sabha.
[34] As regards the main contention raised by the petitioners in this
CRP(I/O) that the mandatory procedural requirement of seeking
CRP(IO)/398/2026 Page 15
16
leave under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
prior to filing of a representative suit has not been complied with in
this case (Title Suit No. 328/2026), this Court is of the considered
opinion that there is no dispute to the legal proposition that if a suit
filed by the plaintiff is a representative suit, in that case the
requirement of complying with the mandate of Order I Rule 8 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is necessary. A representative suit
may be filed only after seeking leave of the Court under Order I
Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
[35] However, the question in this case is as to whether the suit filed by
the present respondent was filed in a representative capacity. On
perusal of the averments made in the plaint filed in Title Suit No.
328/2026, it appears that the present respondent had filed the suit
alleging violation of the provisions of the Constitution of the Assam
Sahitya Sabha by the defendants in deciding to hold the Pratinidhi
Sabha at Golaghat. It also appears that he has filed the suit in his
individual capacity as a life member as well as a Hiteishi member of
the Assam Sahitya Sabha.
[36] This Court is of considered opinion that merely for the fact that in
paragraph Nos. 17 and 19 of the plaint filed by the respondent it is
averred that the actions of defendants would be unfortunate to the
people of Assam and the members of Asam Sahitya Sabha and they
will also suffer irreparable loss and injury, in itself does not make
the suit filed by the respondent a representative suit.
CRP(IO)/398/2026 Page 16
17
[37] The alleged wrongful act of the defendants (petitioners) may
simultaneously infringe the rights of numerous persons. However, a
person whose individual rights are infringed is not bound to institute
a representative suit only for that reason. Such an individual retains
full autonomy to bring an ordinary suit in his individual capacity to
vindicate his own legal rights. The provisions contained in Order I
Rule 8 is of enabling and permissive nature inasmuch as such a
person may also file a representative suit. If he chooses to file a
representative suit, in such a case prior leave of the Court under
Order I Rule 8 would be necessary. However, such a leave may not
be necessary if he does not choose to file a representative suit and
instead files an ordinary suit in his individual capacity to vindicate
his own legal rights, which has happened in the instant case.
[38] The plaintiff (present respondent) has nowhere averred in his plaint
that he has filed the Title Suit No. 328/2026 in a representative
capacity. As such, this Court finds no infirmity in the order of the
Trial Court holding that there is no requirement of complying with
the mandate of Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the
respondent, and as such no grounds have been made out for
rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
[39] As regards the grievance of the petitioners against the order dated
06.06.2026 passed by the Trial Court in Misc.(J) Case No. 599/2026
is concerned, since the said order of granting temporary injunction
has been passed by the Trial Court under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which is an appealable order
CRP(IO)/398/2026 Page 17
18
under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
hence, an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
is not maintainable against such an order. As such, this Court is of
considered opinion that this CRP(I/O) does not merit interference of
this Court in the impugned orders in exercise of its supervisory
jurisdiction.
[40] For the reasons stated and discussions made in the foregoing
paragraphs, this CRP(I/O) is dismissed with cost.
[41] The stay on further proceeding of Title Suit No. 328/2026 granted
by this Court is hereby vacated.
[42] Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Trial Court.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Munmun
Boruah
Digitally signed by
Munmun Boruah
Date: 2026.11.03
17:54:07 +05'30'
CRP(IO)/398/2026 Page 18