K. S. GUPTA ( 1 ) IN the suit filed for recovery of rs. 20,49,873. 00 against defendant No. 1, the defendant No. 1 filed this application under Order 12 Rule 6 read with order 7 Rule 11 and Section 151civil Procedure Code alleging that it is claimed in the plaint that defendant No. 1 accepted consignment consisting of 362 packages of shaving products in consideration of hire charges vide lorry receipt No. 33402 dated 22/1/1993. Admittedly, the contract on the basis whereof the plaintiff seeks to invoke Jurisdiction of court is the said lorry receipt "if by chance the loaded truck catches fire or met with an accident the company shall not be responsible for that. " ( 2 ) A perusal of lorry receipt itself shows that consignment was sent at owner s risk . It is further alleged that plaintiff places reliance on survey report dated 30/3/1993, the perusal whereof reveals that no negligence is attributed to defendant No. l. Cause of damage was fire and lorry was seen at the spot on 6/2/1993 in fire damaged condition. Said lorry receipt and certificate dated 5/4/1993 constitute a special contract as envisaged under Section 6 of the carriers Act, 1865, absolving defendant No. l of the liability to pay suit amount. It is alleged that on said admissions of plaintiff, the suit is liable to be dismissed without any further adjudication. ( 3 ) IT is further stated that defendant No. l is a registered Co-operative Society within the ambit of delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972. without prejudice to above stand, the plaint is liable to be rejected as no notice was served upon the Registrar as required by section 90 of the said Act before the institution of suit. It was prayed that in view of the admissions made by plaintiff, the suit be dismissed or in the alternative, plaint rejected. ( 4 ) PLAINTIFF has contested the application by filing reply. It is alleged and lorry receipt No. 33402 dated 22/1/1993 was issued by defendant No. l in acceptance of consignment consisting of 362 packages of shaving products valued at Rs. 32,13,036. 60. The consignment was, however, not delivered at the destination as being completely damaged in transit by fire caused due to total negligence on the part of defendant No. l or its agent. 32,13,036. 60. The consignment was, however, not delivered at the destination as being completely damaged in transit by fire caused due to total negligence on the part of defendant No. l or its agent. Such a damage is not covered by condition No. 14 of lorry receipt and mentioning of owners risk in lorry receipt cannot re-define the contract of carriage. It is denied that survey report dated 30/4/1993 reveals that no negligence is attributed to defendant No. l. In any event, the authenticity of survey report cannot be tested at this stage. It is emphatically denied that there is any special contract in terms of section 6 of the Carriers Act, 1865 absolving defendant No. l of its liability to pay the suit amount, as alleged. It is further denied that defendant No. l is a registered co-operative Society within the ambit of Delhi Co-operative societies Act, 1972 and notice under Section 90 upon the registrar, Co-operative Societies is mandatory as alleged. Section 90 has no applicability whatsoever in this case and the application which has been filed to delay the proceedings, deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. ( 5 ) SUIT is sought to be dismissed/plaint rejected on two distinct grounds by defendant No. 1. One of the grounds is regarding non-service of notice under section 90 upon the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Written statement by defendant No. 1 is yet to be filed. From the averments made in application, reply filed thereto and the documents placed on record, it may be gathered that there is no dispute about defendant No. 2 having booked 362 packages of shaving products on 22/1/1993 with defendant No. 1 at Delhi for delivery to indian Shaving Products Ltd at Madras against Lorry receipt No. 33402 in consideration of hire charges and packages damaged while being carried by Truck No. DNG 1408 due to fire. Suit amount is alleged to have been paid by the plaintiff to defendant No. 2 as consignment was insured with plaintiff vide Open Declaration Policy bearing No. 351901/4400107 A. Photostat copy of certificate of registration of defendant No. l filed on 8/2/2000, goes to show that defendant No. l had been registered with the Registrar, Co-operative societies, Delhi at No. 1496 under the provisions of bombay Co-operative Societies Act as extended to Delhi. This certificate is shown to have been issued on 16/6/1956. This certificate is shown to have been issued on 16/6/1956. After the repeal of Bombay Co-operative societies Act, 1925, by virtue of Section 92 (1) of Delhi co-operative Societies Act, 1972. the defendant No. l will be deemed to have been registered under the corresponding by defendant No. l, reads as under;- "no suit shall be Instituted against a Co-operative Society or any of its officers in respect of any act touching the business of the Society until the expiration of three months next after notice in writing has been delivered to the Registrar or left at his office, stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims, and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left. " ( 6 ) RELYING on the decision in Sarna Sahakari sekhar Karkhana Ltd vs. Vithairao Anand Rao Deshmukh. U. J. (S. C.) 105 (69) 517, the submission advanced by sh. Vishnu Mehra for plaintiff was that present suit for recovery of Rs. 20,49,873. 00 cannot be said to be touching the business of defendant No. l Society within the meaning of aforesaid section 90 and suit is thus maintainable even without service of notice upon the registrar, Co-operative Societies, Delhi. Above decision was rendered by the Supreme Court relying on its earlier decision in Deccan Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd vs. Messrs Dalichand Juoraj Jain. (Civil Appeal No. 358/67 decided on 29/8/1968 ). As may be noticed from para 12 at page 521, in Deccan Merchants Co-operative bank Ltd s case (supra), the question arose as to whether a dispute touching the assets of a Society was a dispute touching the business of the Society", as envisaged in 1960 and the court held:- "it is clear that the word business in this context does not mean affairs of a society because election of officebearers, conduct of general meetings and management of a society would be treated as affairs of a Society. In this subsection the word business has been used in a narrower sense and it means the actual trading or commercial or other similar business activitiy of the society which the society is authorised to enter into under the Act and the Rules and its bye-laws. In this subsection the word business has been used in a narrower sense and it means the actual trading or commercial or other similar business activitiy of the society which the society is authorised to enter into under the Act and the Rules and its bye-laws. (emphasis supplied)" ( 7 ) NEEDLESS to say that identical words touching the business of the Society have been used in aforesaid section 90. Admittedly, defendant No. l is common carrier engaged in the business of transporting goods for hire. In my view, damage due to fire during transit to shaving products booked against said Lorry receipt No. 33402 dated 22/1/1993 is relatable to the business activities of defendant No. l and this suit for recovery of claim amount paid to defendant No. 2, therefore, could not have been filed without serving a notice as required by said section 90 which is mandatory and the plaint thus deserves to be rejected under Order vii Rule 11civil Procedure Code. ( 8 ) ANOTHER ground taken by defendant No. l essentially pertains to the merits of the case and need not be examined now. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, the plaint is rejected. No order as to costs. Application also stands disposed of.