2025:HHC:24054 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.547 of 2022 Decided on: 24.07.2025 The Baghat Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. … Petitioner Versus M/S Him Mushroom Village Rabon & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Ms. Minakshi Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Kulwant Singh Katoch, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. Mr. Harsh Wardhan, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that in view of the facts and circumstances, instant petition may be allowed and the impugned order dated 29-06-2022 passed by the Id Civil Judge Solan in Civil Suit No 5/1 of 2014 titled M/S Him Mushroom Vs The and others whereby preliminary issue w.r.t. jurisdiction of suit is decided in fvaour of the plaintiff may be quashed and set aside and the preliminary issue be decided in favour of the applicant/ defendant/present petitioner, resultantly the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:24054 suit of the plaintiff/present Respondent No 1 may be dismissed with cost, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that feeling aggrieved by an Award passed by the Court of learned Arbitrator, Cooperative Societies, Solan, District, Solan, H.P., under Section 72 of the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1968, respondent No.1 filed a civil suit for declaration as well as permanent prohibitory injunction, copy whereof is appended with this petition as Annexure P-1. An objection was taken by the petitioner herein with regard to the maintainability of the civil suit on the ground that in the light of the statutory provisions of the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1968, as the order passed by learned Arbitrator under the said Act was appealable, the civil suit was not maintainable. 3. In terms of order dated 29.06.2022, learned Court below rejected the said preliminary objection of the petitioner and has returned the findings that the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit as the plaintiff was seeking a decree for declaration that the Award was null and void. The relevant portion of the order passed by learned Court below is quoted hereinbelow:- “8 It is the admitted case of the parties that award dated 17.5.2010 was passed when the dispute arose between 3 2025:HHC:24054 the parties to the suit The plaintiff has challenged the said award before this! court on the ground that defendant manipulated the facts before the Arbitrator who passed the award dated 17.5.2010 and the award is being challenged on the ground of fraud On the other hand, defendants have taken the plea that this suit is barred under Section 92 of the HP State Cooperative Society Act as no dispute under Section 72 of the HP State Cooperative Societies Act can be passed by a civil court or revenue court, it has to be referred to the Registrar only. 9. No doubt the provisions of Section 72 of the HP State Cooperative Society Act provides that any dispute between the members of the society or the society and the society itself shall be referred to the Registrar But in the case in hand the plaintiff is seeking the declaration challenging the award dated 17.5.2010 in which it was held that the recovery which is being effected from the plaintiff is correct and he is liable to pay amount to the society along with interest. The plaintiff is challenging the award dated 17.5.2010 and all other reliefs which the plaintiff is praying in the relief clause of the plaint, flows through the said relief of declaration It is settled law that a decree for declaration challenging any order can be passed only by a civil court and not by any Registrar. The plaintiff has challenged the award dated 17.5.2010 though which the other reliefs are towing and as per plaintiff on the basis of arbitrary Act and conduct of the 4 2025:HHC:24054 defendant the said award was passed and only a civil court can pass a decree for such declaration and not Registrar of Cooperative Society is competent to do so. 10. Otherwise also at this stage the pleadings as referred in the plaint are to be seen for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that this Court has got the jurisdiction to try and decide the present matter or not The perusal of the file further shows that plaintiff filed one application under Section 70 of the HP State Cooperative Society Act which bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and the said application was allowed vide order dated 18.11.2019. 11. Hence when the plaintiff is seeking a decree for declaration that award dated 17.5.2010 is null and void and all other reliefs are flowing through this relief only then only the Civil Court has got this jurisdiction to pass a decree for declaration and not any Registrar of the Cooperative Society. 12. Thus in the light of these facts this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present case. Accordingly this issue of jurisdiction is answered against the defendants.” 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned order is per se perverse. 5. Learned Court below while passing the impugned order erred in not appreciating that in terms of the provisions of Section 5 2025:HHC:24054 93 (h) of the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1968, any decision or Award made under Section 73 of the Act in appealable. In the light of the fact that the Award which was being assailed before the learned Civil Court was an Award made under Section 73 of the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1968, the same was assailable only in terms of the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act. This is for the reason that the Co-operative Societies Act is both a substantive as well as a procedural law. When the right to invoke the arbitral jurisdiction was conferred by Section 72 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which culminated into the passing of the Award under Section 73 thereof, a person aggrieved could have assailed the same only under Section 93 (h) of the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1968. This aspect of the matter has been completely ignored by the learned Court below while passing the impugned order. The reasoning given by learned Court below that, as the plaintiff was seeking a decree for declaration that the Award was null and void, therefore, it was only the Civil Court that had the jurisdiction to pass a decree for declaration and not the Registrar, are perverse findings. This is for the reason that the grounds taken in the civil suit for assailing the Award may be good or cogent grounds to assail the same, but this does not mean that if the relief is couched in the 6 2025:HHC:24054 words that a declaration to set aside the Award is sought, then the Appellate Authority loses jurisdiction to entertain the same and automatically the jurisdiction of a Civil Court under Section 9 comes into picture. The plaint infact ought to have been rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. 6. This Court would like to add that the learned Civil Courts should be very very careful in this regard and they have to understand and appreciate the significance of the special statutes like the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 and also take into consideration that when in such Acts, which are both substantive and procedural, and which not only provides for the right and remedies, but also as to how the rights provided therein have to be exercised and protected, then the majesty of the Fora provided therein has to be respected by one and all. 7. Therefore, as the impugned order is per se perverse, the petition is allowed and order dated 29.06.2022 (Annexure P/5) is quashed and set aside and the civil suit filed by respondent No.1 is held to be not maintainable. 8. At this learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that the respondents may be given liberty to file in terms of Section 93 (h) of the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 to assail 7 2025:HHC:24054 the Award in issue. 9. Taking into consideration the fact that the civil suit filed by the petitioner is held to be not maintainable by this Court, to ensure that the respondent does not lose a Fora to raise its grievance, it is ordered that in case the respondents files an appeal against the Award passed by the learned Arbitrator on or before 31.08.2025, before the Appellate Authority, the same shall be treated to have been filed within limitation and shall be adjudicated by the Appellate Authority on merit. However, in case no appeal is filed on or before 31.08.2025, then if any appeal is filed thereafter, the same shall not be entertained. 10. The petition stands disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 24, 2025 (Rishi)