Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. Finally, Mr. Bhardwaj submitted that this is a suit between a Co-operative society and its members. He relied on Sections 35 and 91 of the MCS Act, read with Rule 28 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Society Rules, to submit that all these disputes had to be essentially raised and agitated under the special machinery provided, amongst others, by Section 91 of the MCS Act. He submitted that the MCS Act is a complete code and there is a bar on the filing of suits relating to disputes which are covered under Section 91 of the MCS Act. He relied on the Punjabi Bagh Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs. K.L. Kishwar and Anr. 1 to contend that even disputes about defamation and damages would be covered under the special machinery provided under the Cooperative Societies Act.

14. Mr. Bhardwaj, in conclusion, contended that the plaint in this case has been cleverly drafted to create the illusion of a cause of action when, in fact, there is none. He therefore 2001 SCC OnLine Del 1234

12.APP-60.21.DOCX submitted that on a meaningful reading of the plaint, since it is evident that no cause of action is disclosed, the plaint should have been rejected.

15. Mr. Kamat learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs, defended the impugned order based on the reasoning reflected therein. On instructions, he pointed out that the argument based on Section 91 of the MCS Act was never pressed before the learned Single Judge and therefore, could not be allowed to be raised for the first time in this appeal. He pointed out that this argument is not even reflected in the impugned order, and if the appellants had any grievance in this regard, the same should have been made by following the procedure prescribed in Mohd. Akram Ansari Vs. Chief Election Officer & Ors.2

12.APP-60.21.DOCX the reliefs when entertaining an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

21. As regards the contention based on Section 91 of the MCS Act, we note that the impugned order does not discuss this issue. On instructions, Mr. Kamat stated that the same was not argued before the learned Single Judge. Mr. Bhardwaj contends that this issue was very much argued, and the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the same. He submits that this is a ground for entertaining this appeal.

25. In any event, there are several disputed questions, at least on a plain reading of the plaint. Therefore, even the issue as to whether the disputes raised fall in the realm of Section 91 of the MCS Act or not would require some investigation into factual aspects. That is not something which is undertaken when deciding an application under Order VII

12.APP-60.21.DOCX Rule 11 of the CPC. No doubt, the appellants can raise such objections in their written statement and urge the Court to cast an issue on the issue of maintainability of the suit by reference to Section 91 of the MCS Act. However, since at this stage, we are only concerned with the averments in the plaint or the statements in the plaint, we find it difficult to consider the contention that the plaint in this case deserves to be rejected by resorting to Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.