Punjab-Haryana High Court
Primary Cooperative Agricu. Rur. Dev. ... vs Karnail Singh on 11 December, 2014
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 11.12.2014
(1) CR No. 5838 of 2013
Primary Cooperative Agricultural
Rural Development Bank Ltd. ...Petitioner
versus
Karnail Singh ....Respondent
Present: - Mr. Ravinder Malik (Ravi), Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. R.S. Budhwar, Advocate for respondent.
(2) CR No. 7144 of 2013
The Badal EWS Cooperative
Group Housing Society Ltd. ....Petitioner
versus
Sanjay Kumar and ors ....Respondents
Present: - Mr. R.S. Budhwar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. N.C. Kinra, Advocate for
Mr. Harsh Kinra, Advocate
for respondents No. 1 to 4 and 9 to 10.
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
.....
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
.....
This order shall dispose of two civil revisions, bearing CR No. 5838 of 2013 (Primary Cooperative Agricultural Rural Development Bank Ltd vs. Karnail Singh) (hereinafter referred to be as 'first revision') and CR No. 7144 of 2013 (The Badal EWS Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. vs. Sanjay Kumar and ors)(hereinafter referred to be as 'second revision') as the question involved in both the cases is same.
PREETI 2014.12.15 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No. 5838 of 2013 -2-
In both the cases, defendants filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the CPC') for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the civil Court does not have the jurisdiction in view of Section 128 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act') as the remedy available to the plaintiff is by way of referring the dispute between the parties under Section 102 of the Act. The said application was dismissed in both the cases as a result thereof, the present revision petitions have been filed.
In the first petition, application was dismissed on the ground that the defendant has not mentioned that the plaintiff is the member of the society. Accordingly, at the time of preliminary hearing on 19.8.2014, the following order was passed by this Court: -
The defendant's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC has been dismissed despite the fact that he is alleging that the Civil Court was not having the jurisdiction to entertain the suit in terms of Section 102 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984. However, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that Section 102 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act deals with referring the matter to arbitration where the dispute pertains to the business of Society between present or past members and defendant/respondent is not the member of the Society. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to produce on record documentary evidence to prove the membership of the respondent.
Adjourned to 13.11.2014.
The petitioner filed an application to place on record some documents including Annexure P-7 by which it is proved that the plaintiff was 'A'-class member bearing No. 6641DW and has been allotted one share.
This fact is not denied by learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendant.PREETI 2014.12.15 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No. 5838 of 2013 -3-
Accordingly, it is conceded that the Civil Court does not have the jurisdiction in terms of Section 128 of the Act.
In the second petition, learned counsel for respondent has vehemently argued that it is a suit for permanent injunction only and had to be filed because they were afraid that defendant No. 6 (HUDA) may not demolish their flats. However, after going through the plaint, I have found that there is no such threat exerted by defendant No. 6 for demolition of the flats, rather the case set up by the plaintiff who happened to be the member of the society is that the respondent No. 1 to 5 are asking for extra money which is definitely subject matter of arbitration.
Accordingly, both the revision petitions bearing Nos Civil Revision No. 5838 of 2013 and Civil Revision No. 7144 of 2013 are allowed. Impugned orders are hereby set aside.
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE 11.12.2014 preeti PREETI 2014.12.15 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh