High Court Emphasizes Limited Scope of Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 and Rules on Rejection of Plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in Cooperative Election Dispute
In a significant judgment dated 30th September 2026, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Virender Singh, dismissed a petition challenging the trial court's order which refused to reject a plaint filed by members of the Katohar Khurd Co-operative Agriculture Services Ltd. The suit was aimed at contesting the rejection of nomination forms and the validity of the cooperative society's election held on 25th August 2023.
The suit was brought by plaintiffs Pardeep Kumar Gautam and others, who contended that their nomination papers for the cooperative society election were illegally rejected by the society's authorities. They further challenged the election results, claiming the entire election process was conducted in an illegal and unconstitutional manner. The plaintiffs sought multiple reliefs including a declaration nullifying the election results, dissolution of the Managing Committee, appointment of an Administrator to run the society's affairs, and injunctions restraining the defendants from managing the society during the pendency of the suit.
The defendants, including the cooperative society and certain members declared elected, filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 76 of the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1968, seeking rejection of the plaint on two main grounds:
1. Non-compliance with the statutory notice requirement under Section 76 of the Act before institution of the suit, and
2. Bar of jurisdiction under Section 72 of the Act since the election dispute had already been referred to the Registrar under the cooperative societies law.
The trial court rejected the defendants' application, holding that the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded and proved compliance with the notice requirement by annexing postal receipts showing refusal of notice by some defendants. Furthermore, the court observed that though the election dispute was referred under Section 72, the statutory authority had failed to decide the matter within the prescribed period under the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1971.
On appeal under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court reiterated the limited scope of supervisory jurisdiction, emphasizing that the High Court cannot act as an appellate authority to reappreciate facts or evidence at this stage. Citing recent Supreme Court decisions such as K. Valarmathi v. Kumaresan (2025 INSC 606) and Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. v. B. Gurappa Naidu (2026 INSC 434), the Court clarified that interference under Article 227 is warranted only in cases of unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, gross abuse of jurisdiction, or unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction.
The Court further reiterated the well-established principle that while deciding an application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the averments in the plaint and documents annexed thereto can be considered; defenses and merits of the controversy cannot be examined. Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Karam Singh v. Amarjit Singh (2025 (4) RCR 747), the High Court held that the trial court rightly declined to reject the plaint on the ground of non-compliance with notice requirements, as the plaint disclosed compliance.
Regarding the bar of jurisdiction under Section 72 of the Act, the Court observed that the plaintiffs had pleaded delay and inaction on the part of the statutory authority in adjudicating the election dispute within the prescribed four months. Hence, the suit was maintainable, and the trial court's rejection of the application on this ground was justified.
The Court also noted that the plaintiffs sought multiple reliefs, some of which were clearly maintainable. It referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Central Bank of India v. Prabha Jain (2025 INSC 95), which holds that partial rejection of plaint is impermissible under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC if any relief claimed is maintainable.
In conclusion, the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the trial court's order refusing to reject the plaint, thus allowing the suit to proceed for adjudication on merits. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the limited question of rejection of the plaint and did not express any opinion on the substantive merits of the case.
This judgment reinforces the procedural safeguards for plaintiffs in cooperative society election disputes and underscores the limited interference permissible under Article 227 of the Constitution with regard to orders passed on rejection of plaint applications.
Bottom Line:
Order 7, Rule 11 CPC - While considering rejection of plaint, only averments in plaint and documents filed with plaint can be looked into - Defence of defendants cannot be considered - Where plaint disclosed compliance of notice requirement under Section 76 of Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 and also contained reliefs which could not be partially rejected, plaint could not be rejected - Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and cannot be exercised as appellate jurisdiction.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 227 Constitution of India, Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, Section 72 Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1968, Section 76 Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1968, Section 151 CPC, Rule 38(5) HP Cooperative Societies Rules, 1971, Rule 91 HP Cooperative Societies Rules, 1971
