1/6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.292/1999 Ladu Ram and another versus Shri Rana Sanga Bhawan Nirman Co-operative Samiti Ltd. and ors. PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.K.K.Shah, for the appellants Mr. Manish Shishodia, for the respondents. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 22nd January, 2008. JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs – appellants against the order dtd.16.11.1999 whereby the learned trial Court rejected the suit of the plaintiff – appellant allowing application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. filed by the defendants holding that the suit was not maintainable as the dispute fell within the ambit and scope of Section 2/6 75 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 which barred the jurisdiction of any Civil Court to decide any dispute touching the constitution, management, or the business of a co-operative society arising, as per clause (b) of Section 75, between a member, past member or person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the society , its committee or any officer, agent or employee of the society. The bar of jurisdiction is provided under Section 137 of the Act. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents has urged that ex-facie from the averments made in the plaint itself, though title of the suit is shown to be suit for partition and permanent injunction, relief No.2 claimed in the plaint is directed against the Cooperative Society – defendant No.1 Shri Rana Sanga Bhawan Nirman Co-operative Samiti Ltd., whereby the plaintiffs have claimed that the defendant – society or any of its officers, subordinates etc. may be injuncted not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plot of land in question, which is claimed to have been allotted by the defendant – society to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had further claimed that the defendant – Society may be restrained from prohibiting raising of any construction by the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the appellant has opposed these submissions. 3/6 4. I have perused the impugned order and heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The dispute appears to be regarding allotment of plot of land alleged to have been allotted to the plaintiffs. The plaintiff No.1 Ladu Ram claims to be a member of the defendant – society and the plaintiff No.2 Pradeep Kumar alias Deepak S/O Sh. Shrawan Lal is also represented through plaintiff no.1, Ladu Ram claiming to be next friend. The suit is titled as “Pati Batwada” (partition) and for permanent injunction. The learned counsel for the respondents has urged that the dispute pertains to allotment of plot in question to the plaintiffs and relief claimed in the form of injunction against the society itself makes it to be an issue triable by the Registrar under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. Therefore, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the bar contained in Section 137 of the aforesaid Act and therefore, the learned trial Court was justified in allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and rejecting the suit as not maintainable. 4/6 6. A perusal of Section 75 of the Act stipulates that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society arises (a)..... (b) between a member, past member, or person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the society, its committee, or any officer, agent or employee of the society, such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of such dispute. 7. From the application under order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and a bare reading of the plaint and relief claimed by the plaintiffs, it appears prima facie to be correct that the dispute regarding allotment and injunction against the cooperative society is a dispute between members and cooperative – society, which deserves to be decided by the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies in terms of Section 75 and therefore, the Civil Court cannot be said to have any jurisdiction in the matter in view of Section 137 of the Act. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon two judgments of this Court; one in the case of Hanuman Meena V/s 5/6 Chandra Singh reported in 2007(1) DNJ (Raj.) 419 wherein this Court held that the dispute related to size of plot allotted by society to plaintiff and defendant No.1 and since appellant – defendant No.2 had bought the plot from defendant No.1 and since there was dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants, obviously the dispute related between member and the person who claimed through a past member of the Society, therefore, such dispute was required to be decided by the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies in terms of Section 75 of the Act. He also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Managing Director and another V/s Additional Registrar and another – S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4378/2003 decided on 27.11.2007, wherein dealing with the provisions of new Act Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001, in a case involving recovery of two loan accounts , i.e. Loan account No.102 pertaining to Hanuman Ram S/o Sh. Sona Ram and loan account No.103 pertaining to Babu Lal S/O Sh. Sona Ram, brother of said Hanuman Ram, the Court held that such interse dispute between the petitioner - Cooperative Society and member (borrowers) deserves to be decided by the Registrar in terms of Section 60 akin to Section 75 of the old Act. 6/6 9. Therefore, I find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents that the present suit was rightly rejected by the learned trial Court and the appeal is devoid of merit. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. Item No.7 Ss/-