Sharad Oshwal Shri A.P. Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri U.K. Bassi, learned counsel for respondent. Whether approved for reporting : Yes ORDER (11/03/2016) The petitioners have filed the present revision challenging the order dated 27/8/2014 passed by 10 th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.111A/2011 thereby rejecting an application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent has filed a civil suit against the petitioners for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,89,000/ together with interest at the rate of 28%. The aforesaid amount has been sought to be recovered as interest on the delayed payment to the respondent. The respondent is a Small Scale Industry and in the plaint reliance has been placed on the provisions of Micro, Small and Medium 2 Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2006'). The petitioners have filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC on the ground that the suit, as appeared from the statement of plaint, to be barred under the Act of 2006. It has been submitted that the Act of 2006 is a selfcontained Code creating right in favour, interalia, of Small Scale Industry to recover interest on the delayed payment as well as the forum for recovery of such payment, thus, the respondent has an efficacious remedy available under the Act of 2006 for recovery of amount. 3. The respondent has filed reply to the said application and submitted that Section 18 of the Act of 2006 does not bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and, therefore, in absence of any express exclusion of any civil proceeding, civil suit is maintainable. 4. The trial Court by its order dated 27/8/2014 has dismissed the said application on the ground that the provisions of Sections of the Act of 2006 no where bar the Civil Court to exercise its jurisdiction and, therefore, civil suit is maintainable. Being aggrieved by this order, the applicants have preferred this civil revision before this Court. 3 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Section 15 of the Act provides for liability of buyer to make payment and as per said section, the supplier when supplies the goods, then the buyer shall make payment therefor on or before the date agreed upon between them. Section 16 provides for payment of interest and Section 18 provides reference to Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council. He has submitted that as per Section 16 of the Act of 2006, when there is a delay in payment by the buyer, then according to Section 15, the buyer shall liable to pay compound interest with monthly rate to the supplier on that amount from the appointed day. Section 17 provides for recovery of amount due. Section 18 provides that when there is any dispute with regard to any amount due to Section 17, then a reference shall be made to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council. Thus, as per the said section, if there is any dispute regarding the amount due, then the matter has to be referred to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council. He has contended that in the present case from the plaint allegation, it is clear that there is a dispute about payment of interest under the Act and, 4 therefore, the respondent has to approach to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council for recovery of the said amount and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dhulabhai etc Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another reported in AIR 1969 SC 78 and the judgment passed by this Court in the case of R.R. Home Developers Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Rajendra Jain, reported in 2013(2) MPLJ 525, in which it has been held that where a statute creates a special right or liability and provides for determination of such rights or liability by any forum constituted under such statute, the maintainability of civil suit in such cases is impliedly barred. He, thus, has argued that although the civil suit is not specifically barred by the Act of 2006 but as in the present case a statute creates a special authority for determination of rights or liability, therefore, the civil suit is impliedly barred. He has further a