IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19269 of 2011 Central Bank Karmcahri Swablambi Co-Operative Society Ltd. Versus Heera Prasad Pandey ---------------------------------- 2. 08.11.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application under Section Article 227 of the constitution of India has been filed by the defendant petitioner against the order dated 6.8.2011 passed by Sub Judge – 5th Patna City in Title Suit No. 79 of 2007 whereby the court below has rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 and 151 C.P.C. The respondent plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit praying for declaration that the defendant has no right to sell out the flat detailed in the plaint to any other person and further for an injunction restraining the defendant petitioner from dealing with or alienating it and selling it to any other person till disposal of the suit. The present petitioner appeared and filed written statement. Thereafter an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. was filed raising therein a question of bars of the jurisdiction of civil court in view of provision of Section 48 and section 57 of the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act, 1935. After hearing the parties the learned court below observed that the said 2 question shall be decided at the time of hearing of the suit. Section 48 of the Bihar Cooperation Societies Act 1935 (hereinafter referred to as the Societies Act) reads as follows: “48. Dispute.-(1) If any dispute touching the business of a registered society other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the society or its managing committee against a paid servant of the society arises- (a) amongst members, past members, persons claiming through members, past members or deceased members, and sureties of members, past members of deceased members, whether such sureties are members or non-members; or (b) between a member, past member, persons claiming through a member, past member or deceased member, whether such sureties are members, past members and the society, its managing committee or any officer, agent or servant of the society; or (c) between the society or its managing committee and any past or present officer, agent or servant of the society; or (d) between the society and any other registered society; (e) between a financing bank authorized under the provisions of sub section (1) of section 16 and a person who is not a member of a registered society; such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar: Provided that no claim against a past member or the estate of a deceased member shall be treated as a dispute if the liability of the past member or of the estate 3 of the deceased member has been extinguished by virtue of section 32 or section 63”. Likewise Section 57 of the Societies Act reads as follows : 57. Bar of jurisdiction of Court.- (1) Save in so far as expressly provided in this Act., no Civil or Revenue Court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of any matter concerned with the winding up or dissolution of the registered society or suspension of the Managing Committee of a registered society under its act, or of any dispute required by section 48 to be referred to the Registrar or of any proceedings, under Chapter VII A. (2) While a society is in liquidation, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be proceeded with or instituted against the liquidator as such or against the society or any member thereof on any matter touching the affairs of the society, except by leave of the Registrar and subject to such term as he may impose. (3) No order of the State Government, District Judge, Registrar, a person appointed to assist the Registrar, liquidator, or an arbitrator or arbitrators purporting to be one, which under any provision of this Act is declared to be final shall be liable to be challenged, set aside, modified, revised, or declared void in any Court upon merits or upon any ground whatsoever except want of jurisdiction.” From perusal of the plaint it appears that the plaintiff has prayed for declaration that the defendant has no right to sell the suit property and also prayed for temporary injunction. So far this relief claimed by the plaintiff respondent is concerned the Societies Act does not confer jurisdiction on any statutory authority under 4 the Societies Act. In a decision reported in AIR 2010 SC 2897 Ramesh Gobindram (deceased by LRs.) Vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows : “The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to try suits of civil nature is very expansive. Any statute which excludes such jurisdiction is, therefore, an exception to the general rule that all disputes shall be triable by Civil Court. Any such exception cannot be readily inferred by the Courts. The Court would, lean in favour of a construction that would uphold the retention of jurisdiction of the Civil Courts and shifts the onus of proof to the party that asserts that Civil Court’s jurisdiction is ousted. Even if a statute grants finality to decision of Tribunal has jurisdiction to grants relief which the Civil Court would normally grant.” In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)