### Disputed Questions of Fact Regarding Authority and Locus Standi Bar Outright Rejection Under Order VII Rule 11

The revisionist (defendant) challenged an order dated 06.03.2026 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haldwani, which rejected his application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC

The dispute involves a society, Vidhya Pushp Academy, where the respondent (plaintiff) alleged that the revisionist was interfering with the society's functioning

The revisionist contended that the suit was filed by Mr. Akshat Jain without authority, as he had been removed from the society and was not authorized under Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act

Further, the revisionist argued the suit was undervalued and lacked a cause of action

1. Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC for lack of cause of action and statutory bar under Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act

2. Whether the suit was liable for rejection due to undervaluation and insufficient court fees

3. Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order under Section 115 of the CPC

The Court applied Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, which mandates the rejection of a plaint if it discloses no cause of action or is barred by law, emphasizing that only the averments in the plaint are germane

It relied on Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra to establish that the defendant’s pleas in a written statement are irrelevant at the Rule 11 stage

The Court further cited Kamala & Ors. v. K.T. Eshwara SA & Ors., noting that for Rule 11(d), evidence cannot be looked into and the bar must be apparent on the face of the plaint

Regarding valuation, it applied the principles from Marg Limited v. Sushil Lalwani & Ors., which held that rejection under Rule 11(b) or (c) is not automatic and requires the Court to first grant the plaintiff an opportunity to correct the valuation or pay the deficit fee

The Court observed that the trial court correctly limited its scrutiny to the plaint's averments

It found that the question of Mr. Akshat Jain’s authority to sue—given the conflicting claims of his role as "Acting President" versus his alleged removal—constituted a disputed question of fact requiring evidence, thus precluding rejection at the threshold

The Court noted that in prior litigation, the revisionist had not challenged Mr. Akshat Jain's authority

Regarding the statutory bar under Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, the Court held it was not ex-facie established

On the issue of court fees, the Court reasoned that since the trial court had not yet issued a specific direction to the plaintiff to correct the valuation, the plaint could not be rejected

Finally, the Court found no jurisdictional error by the trial court to warrant interference under its revisional jurisdiction

The Court held that disputed facts and curable defects regarding valuation do not render a suit non-maintainable at the threshold

The Court granted the revisionist liberty to raise the plea of "tenability" in his written statement, directing the trial court to frame and decide it as a preliminary issue within two months of framing