Assam Sahitya Sabha Member’s Individual Suit Over Golaghat Meeting Can Proceed Without Order I Rule 8 Leave, Gauhati HC Says

Ananta Ram Medhi, claiming to be a life member and Hiteishi member of the Assam Sahitya Sabha, filed Title Suit No. 328/2026 in his individual capacity.

He challenged the proposed Pratinidhi Sabha scheduled for 7 June 2026 and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

The petitioners sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, contending, among other things, that the suit was representative in nature and required prior leave under Order I Rule 8 CPC, and that the Sabha’s Constitution restricted litigation to courts at Jorhat.

The Trial Court rejected the applications and granted a temporary injunction restraining the Pratinidhi Sabha.

The petitioners challenged those orders under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Section 9 CPC confers jurisdiction on Civil Courts to try suits of a civil nature unless their jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly barred by statute; a society’s bye-laws cannot themselves oust that jurisdiction.

Order I Rule 8 CPC permits representative litigation, but a plaintiff who chooses to sue only in an individual capacity need not obtain leave under that provision.

Order III Rule 1 CPC permits a party to appear and act in person; Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961 concerns permission for a non-advocate to appear for another and does not prevent a litigant from presenting their own case.

An order granting temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC is appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC.

The Court found that the plaint asserted the respondent’s own rights as a Sabha member and did not state that he was suing in a representative capacity.

References to potential harm to other members and the public did not convert his individual suit into a representative one; accordingly, Order I Rule 8 leave was unnecessary.

The Sabha’s internal Constitution could not displace the jurisdiction conferred on Civil Courts by Section 9 CPC.

The respondent could plead his own case under Order III Rule 1 CPC, without relying on Section 32 of the Advocates Act.

As the injunction order was appealable, the Court held that it was not a proper subject for the Article 227 challenge brought in this proceeding.

It held that the injunction order was appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC and that Article 227 was not maintainable as a challenge to that order in this case.

The stay of further proceedings in the suit was vacated.