[2025:RJ-JP:17127] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 81/2021 Apollo Greh Nirman Sehkari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Through Vice- President Shri Puran Chand Chipa Registered Address Narayan Niwas Triveni Nagar Chaurahe Se Pehle Gopal Pura Byepass Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Murarilal Dubey S/o Shri Ramhet Prasad Dubey, R/o Malakpadabadi District Dholpur Rajasthan. 2. Mukesh Sharma S/o Shri Gopiram Sharma, R/o Jaisinghpura Tehsil Niwai District Tonk Rajasthan Presently Residing At 105 Kartarpura Kachi Basti 22 Godam Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Bardhar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashwani Bhargava, Adv. for Mr. Manu Bhargava, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 23/04/2025 The present civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant No. 2 (for short ‘the defendant’) against the order dated 20.12.2019 passed by Civil Judge & Metropolitan Magistrate (East), Jaipur Metropolitan (for short ‘the trial Court’) in civil suit No. 164/12 titled as “Murari Lal Dubey Vs. Mukesh Sharma”, whereby the application filed by the defendant has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondent No. 1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the defendant and respondent No. 2. [2025:RJ-JP:17127] (2 of 4) [CR-81/2021] Learned counsel for the defendant submits that defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 58 and 117 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Society Act, 2001 mentioning that present suit was not maintainable because dispute between the society and its member should be adjudicated as per the Section 58 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Society Act, 2001 by an arbitrator, but the trial Court vide order dated 20.12.2019 dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that although defendant had filed the written statement but had not taken any objection with regard to averments made in the application. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that objection raised by the defendant is legal objection, so, that can be raised at any time during the pendency of the suit. So, the revision petition as well as application filed by the defendant be allowed and the order dated 20.12.2019 passed by the trial Court be set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed being barred by law. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed the reliance upon the following judgments:- 1. Vimal Roy Jain Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi passed in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 190/2010 decided on 22.07.2013. 2. Anjan Choudhury Vs. Anandeer Co-operative reported in AIR 1990 Cal 380, (1991) 2 CALLT 17 HC, 94 CWN 515. 3. K. Akbar Ali Vs. K. Umar Khan and Ors. in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31844/2018 decided on 12.02.2021. 4. Hanuman Meena Vs. Chandra Singh reported in AIR 20077 RAJ 76. [2025:RJ-JP:17127] (3 of 4) [CR-81/2021] 5. Saleem Bhai and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. in appeal (civil) No. 8518/2002 decided on 17.12.2002. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submits that present suit is not related to the Rajasthan Cooperative Society Act, 2001 because plaintiff filed the suit to the effect that respondent No.2 had encroached the way which was mentioned in the Northern side of the plot of the plaintiff. Plaintiff wanted to get the permanent injunction against respondent No.2. So, arbitrator cannot adjudicate the present matter. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that defendant had not taken any objection in his written statement and evidence of plaintiff and respondent No.2 have been completed and presently matter is posted for the evidence of defendant. He further submits that defendant wanted to cause delay in the matter, so, the application was filed by him. So, the petition filed by the defendant being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed on cost. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the judgment passed in case of “Harsh Vardhan Kejriwal Vs. Madhav Nagar Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti” reported in RLW 2007 (4) RAJ 3473. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that plaintiff had filed the civil suit for permanent injunction against the respondent No. 2 and defendant regarding construction done on the way. Defendant had [2025:RJ-JP:17127] (4 of 4) [CR-81/2021] filed the written statement and not taken any objection therein which was taken by him in the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 58 and 117 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Society Act, 2001. Suit is at the fag end of the trial. Evidence of plaintiff as well as respondent No.2 have been completed and matter has been posted for evidence of the defendant. So, in my considered opinion, defendant filed application to cause delay in the suit. Therefore, the present revision petition filed by the defendant deserves to be dismissed with cost. Accordingly, the present civil revision petition filed by the defendant is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by the defendant with Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/77