THE HONOURABLE Smt. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI Civil Revision Petition No.3425 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A. No. 1446 of 2009 in O.S. No.2130 of 2009. The petitioner is the defendant No.1 and the 2nd respondent herein is the defendant No.2. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff, who filed the aforementioned suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction. In that suit, the petitioner herein filed I.A. No. 1446 under Order 11(d) and under Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking to reject the plaint on the ground that under certain provisions of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, the Court below has no jurisdiction to try the suit. While opposing the claim of the petitioner, the 1st respondent-plaintiff filed counter before the Court below stating that since the suit in question is filed for the relief of permanent injunction, the Registrar is not empowered to grant the relief. It is also stated that the defendant no.1 has not obtained any permission from the Registrar while awarding the contract to defendant No.2 for developing its property and clandestinely and illegally awarded the contract. The Court below having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, dismissed the petition as not maintainable through the impugned order, which reads thus: Perused record admittedly suit is filed for permanent injunction to grant such a relief this Court is having jurisdiction. The petitioner failed to mention which specific provision bars the jurisdiction of this Court in entertaining suit. Simply in petition stated that certain provisions under multi state cooperative societies act bars jurisdiction of this court. No proof of the same filed by petitioner. Moreover in petition he stated that alleged dispute touching management and business of society is to be referred to central Registrar of society. On the face of record, it could be seen that dispute or suit is not relating to touching management or business it is suit for injunction. Therefore reasons in petition are untenable and liable to be dismissed. Petition is dismissed.” Challenging the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed the present revision. Sri Bajrang Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the very same contentions which were urged before the Court below sought to contend that the suit as filed is not maintainable and the Court below erred in dismissing the I.A. through the impugned order. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., I am of the view that the petitioner except stating that under certain provisions of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, the Court below has no jurisdiction to try the suit, has not mentioned the actual provision which bars the jurisdiction of the Court below to try the suit. Further, the petitioner also did not mention in the said I.A., whether the petitioner- society is a registered society or not and whether the person who has sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. is authorised to file such an I.A. before the Court below on behalf of the petitioner-society, in the absence of which, the Court below has rightly dismissed the said I.A. Under the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order under revision warranting interference. The revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date:13th August, 2010 Note: Furnish c.c. in three days. B/o pnb