Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed under Sec. 115 of CPC, challenging the order dt. 29.05.2013 passed by the District Judge, Sawamimadhopur (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") in Civil Suit No. 16/2013, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the application of the petitioner -defendant seeking rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. It appears that the respondent No. 1 -plaintiff has filed the suit against the petitioner -defendant seeking recovery of sum of Rs. 73,000/ - and interest amount of Rs. 68,866/ - alleging inter alia that the respondent -plaintiff used to purchase goods from the petitioner -defendant, by depositing amount in advance and that the amount mentioned in the plaint was required to be refunded by the petitioner, having been deposited in advance and in excess of the goods supplied by the petitioner -defendant. In the said suit, the petitioner -defendant had filed the application seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 on the ground that the suit was barred as per provisions contained in Section 58 of the Rajasthan Co -operative Societies Act, 2001 And Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The said application has been rejected by the trial Court vide the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed.
(2.) IT has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Rahul Kamwar, for the petitioner that the disputes involved in the suit being covered under Sec. 58 of the said Act, the trial Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Placing reliance on the various judgments of the Apex Court and of this Court on the interpretation of the expression "touching the business of the society", the learned counsel has submitted that the present dispute touching the business of the petitioner's Society was covered under Sec. 58 of the said Act. The Court does not find any substance in the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 58 of the said Act contemplates that any dispute touching the constitution, management or business of a Co -operative Society arising amongst the members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members, etc. as specified in five clauses thereof is required to be referred to the Registrar for the decision. Who could he said to be the Member of the Society, has also been defined in Section 2(p) of the said Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner having failed to show from the averments made in the plaint as to how the respondent -plaintiff was the member of the petitioner's Society within the meaning of said definition and how the dispute was covered under any of the five clauses mentioned in Section 58 of the said Act, the present revision petition does not deserve any consideration. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts of the present case. In view of the above, the Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. The revision petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.;