VINEET KOTHARI - (1.) DEFENDANT Petitioner Anant Sri Sukhram Ji Trust Ramdham, Birai, in a Civil Suit filed by a Co -operative Society, Shri Balaji Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti, Ltd., for cancellation of sale -deed executed by Defendant No. 2 Harivallabh son of Sita Ram in his individual capacity in favour of Defendant is before this Court by way of present revision petition, aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.2009 passed by the learned trial Court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Parabatsar, District, Nagaur, rejecting the Defendant's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure seeking dismissal of the suit itself an anvil of Section 58 (1)(e) of the Rajasthan Co -operative Societies Act, 2001, read with Section 117 of the Act which bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court or Revenue Court, under given circumstances.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the Defendant Petitioner, Mr. Sajjan Singh relying upon the decision of co -ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hanuman Meena v. Chandra Singh : AIR 2007 (Raj) 76 submitted that since the dispute between the Plaintiff Cooperative Society and its Member Defendant No. 2 Harivallabh who had sold the plot of land in question to the Defendant by a registered sale -deed on 27.6.2003 was a dispute referable to the Registrar in accordance with the provisions of Section 58 of the new Rajasthan Co -operative Societies Act, 2001 parallel to Section 75 of the Old Act of 1965, therefore, the present suit for cancellation of sale -deed was not maintainable and the trial Court has erred in rejecting the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(3.) HE further submitted that in view of the statutory arbitration provisions contained in Section 58 in Chapter 10 of the Act of 2001 in the form of Section 58 which under its Clause (e) includes inter -alia transaction under Section 52 of the Act, which also provides for certain restrictions on the transaction of the Co - operative Society with the persons other than its members, save as provided in Sections 50 and 51, it was incumbent upon the trial Court to refer such dispute to Arbitrator in view of mandatory provisions of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Pink City Midway Petroleums, : (2003)6 SCC 503 to support this contention.;