- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned counsel for opposite party No. 1. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 31.08.2012 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 24, Lucknow in regular suit No.252/2012 (Ramesh Chandra vs. Sarla Verma and Ors.), by which the application of the defendant, before this Court, for rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., has been rejected.? The said application was numbered as paper No. 16 A, in which, it was averred by the revisionists (Defendant Nos. 2 to 5), that plaintiff's father was a member of the society, who had died on 03.04.1974 and, as such, the disputed plot has been mutated in the name of plaintiff's mother. A complaint was made to the Deputy Commissioner (Housing) by one Baladutt Shetty and a suit was also instituted under Section 70 U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, in which an award was made on 22.06.2004 and the appeal against the award is pending? and; the suit is barred by time; which is also defective, because of non-impleadment of necessary parties.? That the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under Section 70 U.P. Co-operative Societies Act and the plaint deserves to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C..? The defendant filed objection 28 C. After hearing both the parties, the learned Trial Court has rejected the application and has observed that the dispute before the Civil Court does not relate to any dispute regarding membership of the society and, as such, the Court has jurisdiction to try the suit.?
(2.) A perusal of the copy of plaint contained in Annexure no. 1 shows that the suit for permanent injunction has been filed on the simplicitor ground that the plaintiff is legal owner of the suit property.? Mode of ownership has been described from para-3 to para- 7, in which all the contents have been mentioned.? The defendants are indulging in fraudulent act, as such, defendant No. 1 has again executed the subsequent sale-deed in favour of the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 and, as such, the execution was being processed and the suit was filed under Section 111 of U.P. Co-operative Societies Act. Section 111 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act is reproduced below:- Bar of Jurisdiction of court- Save as expressly provided in this Act, no civil or revenue court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of- (a) the registration of a co-operative society or its bye-laws or of an amendment of a bye-law; (b) the supersession or suspension of a Committee of Management. (c) any dispute required under Section 70 to be referred to the Registrar; and (d) any other order or award made under this Act.
(3.) In view of this provision, the Civil Court shall not have jurisdiction to try a case where registration of a Co-operative Society or its bye-laws are, in question or the subject-matter relate to supersession or suspension of Management Committee, or any dispute under Section 70 has been preferred to any order or award made under this Act.? The learned trial Court rightly observed that this is a suit relating to property dispute.;