1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. of 2007 Vs. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 25 th July, 2008. Heard. This writ petition is preferred against the order passed by Joint Civil Judge Senior Division whereby he allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code holding that he does not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The suit was filed by the present petitioner claiming a relief that the document obtained by respondent No.1 and 4 was obtained from 2 her by misrepresentation and fraud and therefore amount sought to be recovered from her cannot be recovered. The defendant No. 2 Special Recovery Officer filed an application purporting to be under Order 7 Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code as well an application under Section 9-A of Civil Procedure Code. Main contention that was raised by the defendant No. 2 was that the suit was not maintainable in the Civil Court inasmuch as present dispute was covered by Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960. Learned Civil Judge allowed the application holding that the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction and directed the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by that plaintiff has preferred this writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He contended before me that it is not a dispute as contemplated by Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. He submitted that he was basically challenging the document said to have been executed by the plaintiff herself because it was allegedly obtained by fraud. He submitted that such a dispute can therefore be decided by the Civil Court. Further according to 3 him the plaintiff was not a Member of the Society and therefore there was no question of application of Section 91 at all. After having gone through the provision of Section 91 it is apparent that a surety is covered by the provision of Section 91 of the Cooperative Societies Act. It is the contention of the defendant that plaintiffs have signed the mortgage deed as a surety. Plaintiff is one of those persons as mentioned in Section 91 and therefore is not excluded from purview of Section 91 at all. The question as to whether the said document was obtained from plaintiff by fraud can be gone into by the Cooperative Court also. In the circumstances I do not find that the order suffers from any illegality or infirmity. Petition is dismissed. JUDGE svk