SII IN THE HON'BL^•muH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR (C.GJl WRI T PETITION (227) N0, 7^\\ OF2010(S.B.) PETITIONER DEFENDANT ^•••"^^^" Sanjay Baveja S/o V. S. Baveja, aged about 47 years, R/o R/05, 35 Ravindra Nagar Indore (M.P.). Through Power of Attorney Holder namely Indersen Baveja S/o Late R. K. Baveja, aged about 73 years, R/o E-l/137, Arera Colony Bhopal (M.P.). VERSUS RESPONDENT PLAINTIFF Ku. Smita Pandey D/o Shri Devi Prasad Pandey, R/06 Kailash Residency Meera Datar Road, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^j'r-^ f'^^ ^ t^^^ 1 ^ fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar MBshra PETITIONER RESPONDENT Writ Petition 1227) No. 7411/2010 Sanjay Baveja Versus : Ku. Smita Pandey Aooearance: Shri M.K. Bhaduri, counsel for the petitioner. WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTrrUTION OF INOU ORALORDER (15.12.2010) Heard. (2) The trial court, while deciding the petitioner/defendant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has concluded that the issue regarding improper valuation of the suit and non payment of adequate court fee as well as the suit being barred by Umitation are mixed question oflawand fact which can only be decided at the end oftrial. (3) Leamed counsel would submit that inspite of these observations, the trial court did not take up those issues in the trial because while framing issues on 6/08/2010, no such issue have been framed by the trial court. He would also submit that his plea regarding the order passed by Deputy Registrar Co-opemtive Societies, Raipur and its finality has not been dealt with by the trial court. According to him the petitioner has impliedly raised a plea -^ ^^-/ -Q-. about maintainabiUty of the suit on the ground that in a case where the dispute is pending before the Registrar Co-operative Societies, a civil suit is not maintainable under the relevant provisions of section 82 ofthe C.G. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. (4) On perusal of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and the impugned order, the argument raised by leamed counsel appears to bejustified. (5) In view of the above, it is directed that the trial court shall frame issue regarding valuation and court fee as well as on the point of limitation for its trial along with other issues and the petitioner shall be at liberty to move a fresh application under Order 7 Rule 11 ofCPC raising a plea ofmaintainability ofthe suit in view ofthe bar contained under section 82 ofthe C.G. Co-operativeSocieties Act. (6) With this observation, the instant petition stands disposed of. cy^ Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge