[2025:RJ-JP:22997] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 156/2021 1. Smt. Rukmani Devi W/o Hari Singh Dayma, R/o 115,116, Nandpuri Colony, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. 2. Hari Singh Dayma Son Of Unknown, R/o 115, 116, Nandpuri, Colony, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. ---Petitioners Versus 1. Smt. Indira Devi W/o Shri Ganesh Narayan Sahu, R/o Panchayat Bhawan Ke Pass, Kumharon Ka Mohalla, Vanasthali, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk, (Raj.) 2. Vivek Gupta Through President/minister, Shanti Bhawan Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Jaipur Registration No. 3284/l, Address-D-8, Rpa Road, Dwarikapur, Jaipur. 3. Deputy Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority, Zone-19, Prn (South), Sector-12, Inder Path, Near Community Center, Mansarover, Jaipur. 4. Sub-Registrar Office, Sanganer, Jaipur. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 134/2021 1. Smt. Rukmani Dayma W/o Hari Singh Dayma, R/o 115,116, Nandpuri Colony, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. 2. Hari Singh Dayma Son Of Unknown, R/o 115, 116, Nandpuri, Colony, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Rekhraj Sahu Son Of Shri Satyanarayan, R/o Village And Post Vanasthali, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk (Raj.) 2. Vivek Gupta Through President/ Minister, Shanti Bhawan Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd, Jaipur Registration No. 3284/l, Address-D-8, Rpa Road, Dwarikapuri, Jaipur. 3. Deputy Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority, Zone-19, PRN (South), Sector-12, Inder Path, Near Community Center, Mansarover, Jaipur. 4. Sub- Registrar Office, Sanganer, Jaipur. [2025:RJ-JP:22997] (2 of 12) [CR-156/2021] ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 26/05/2025 1. These two revision petitions were preferred by the petitioners Rukmani and Hari Singh after dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC on 31.07.2021 in Civil Suit No.28/2018 (81/2015) tilted as Indira Devi Vs. Smt. Rukmani Devi & Ors. and Civil Suit No.48/2018 (82/2015) titled as Rakhraj Sahu Vs. Rukmani Devi, by learned Additional Civil Judge No.2, Jaipur. 2. As the petitioners-defendants are common and a common issue is raised, therefore, both the petitions are tagged together and we are disposing of with a common order. The facts of both the cases are almost identical except name of plaintiff and plot number. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while relying upon judgment in case of Hanuman Meena Vs. Chandra Singh : AIR 2007 Raj. 76 submitted that the respondent-plaintiff has filed a civil suit with the averment that the defendant No.3 Co-operative Housing Society has allotted a plot to Hanuman Sahai and Hanuman Sahai has sold the property to plaintiff. He further submitted that the plaintiff has filed an application for regularization and issuance of lease deed but same was registered by defendant Nos.1 and 2. He further submitted that in the instant [2025:RJ-JP:22997] (3 of 12) [CR-156/2021] case, there is a dispute between the members of a Housing Society, therefore, this issue is required to be considered under Section 58 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act of 2001’) and a suit is barred by law. He further referred the provisions of the Act and submitted that the matter is required to be adjudicated through arbitration by the Registrar and a Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the issue raised by plaintiff in both the suits. He also submitted that a Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a civil suit and same is barred by law, therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff and he submitted that the plaintiff has filed a civil suit to declare his right as there is a dispute with regard to title and ownership. He also submitted that when there is a dispute with regard to title and ownership then no authority other than Civil Court can decide an issue of title. He further submitted that if there is a triable dispute then an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC cannot be allowed to reject the plaint of plaintiff. He further submitted that the trial Court may frame an issue and decide on basis of the evidence of the parties. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 6. The facts giving rise to the instant revision petition in brief are that the respondent No.1 (plaintiff) has filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction before learned Civil Judge. An application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed by the present petitioners-defendants No.1 and 2 invoking jurisdiction of Section [2025:RJ-JP:22997] (4 of 12) [CR-156/2021] 58 of the Act of 2001. This application was dismissed on 31.07.2021. Hence, this revision petition. 7. A perusal of facts narrated indicate that the plaintiff has filed a civil suit on the ground that he purchased a piece of land (plot) from Hanuman Sahai, which was allotted to him by respondent No.3. The plaint further averred that after allotment to Hanuman Sahai on 15.03.1990, he raised certain constructions and after purchase on 18.01.2012, the plaintiff has maintained his possession. The dispute is raised when the plaintiff has approached the JDA on 02.03.2015 for regularization and issuance of lease deed. 8. Here in this case, the petitioners-defendants have claimed that the patta issued to Hanuman Sahai is fake and fabricated and the petitioners are the allottees of the Society. An application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is filed to refer dispute in terms of Section 58 of the Act of 2001. 9. Order VII Rule 11 CPC deals with the grounds for rejection of plaint aiming to prevent frivolous or defective suits. The provision enables the Court to reject a plaint, if certain conditions are satisfied. The provision of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is reproduced as under:- Rejection of plaint— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:— (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper [2025:RJ-JP:22997] (5 of 12) [CR-156/2021] within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law : (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provision of rule 9: “Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature form correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp- paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.” 10. In case of T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC (1) 467, Hon’ble Supreme Court while examining the aforesaid provision has held that the trial court must remember that if on a meaningful and not a formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created an illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party under Order X of the Code. 11. The object of the said provision is further considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner : (2004) 3 SCC 137 and in Popat and Kotecha Property vs. State Bank of India Staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510, and held that no court shall permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in a suit in case [2025:RJ-JP:22997] (6 of 12) [CR-156/2021] the suit does not disclose a cause of action or barred by any law or law of limitation. 12. In case of Saleem Bhai vs. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557 that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power at any stage of the suit i.e. before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendants in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage. 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dahibhen Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali through LRs and Ors. 2020 SCC Online (SC) 562 while dealing with an appeal against an order allowing rejection of a suit at the threshold, had occasion to consider various precedents to discuss the intent under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that if no cause of action is disclosed in the plaint, or if the suit is barred by law, court would not permit protraction of the proceedings and it would be necessary to put an end to the shame litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted. 14. After placing reliance upon Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 SCC (SUPP) 315, Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that the entire purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation, which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time and space of the [2025:RJ-JP:22997] (7 of 12) [CR-156/2021] Courts. The power on the Court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, but the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 CPC are required to be strictly adhered to. 15. Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with such an application seeking rejection of a plaint clarified that while determining any application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court should restrict itself to the plaint and should not go into the detail facts as provided under the written statement or even in the application filed for rejection of plaint. While scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, the Court can read documents annexed and relied upon in the plaint. 16. Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC provides that a plaint should be rejected if the suit is barred by any law. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ramisetty Venkatanna Vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb 2023 INSC 458 has observed that plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a)(d) of CPC if it is vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by law. 17. In view of law laid down for disposal of application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, a Court can consider the averment made in plaint and the documents annexed and relied upon by plaintiff in his plaint. 18. Section 58 of the Act of 2001 provides for dispute which may be referred to arbitration and same is reproduced as under:- “58. Disputes which may be referred to arbitration - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute touching [2025:RJ-JP:22997] (8 of 12) [CR-156/2021] the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society arises - (a) among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members, or (b) between a member, past member or a person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the society, its committee or any officer, agent or employee of the society, or (c) between the society or its committee and any past committee, any officer, agent or employee, or any past officer, past agent or past employee or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the society, or (d) between the society and any other co-operative society, or (e) between the society and the surety of a member, past member or a deceased member, or a person other than a member who has been granted a loan by the society or with whom the society has or had transaction under section 52, whether such a surety is or is not a member of a society, such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of such dispute: Provided that such disputes between the society and its employees, for which a remedy is available under the provisions of the service laws applicable on the employees, shall not be entertained under this section. (2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), the following disputes shall also be deemed to be the disputes touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, namely:- [2025:RJ-JP:22997] (9 of 12) [CR-156/2021] (a) a claim by the society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not; (b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor, where the society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor as a result of the default of the principal debtor, whether such debt or demand is admitted or not; (c) any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of the society: Provided that no dispute under this clause shall be entertained during the period commencing from the announcement of election programme and ending on the declaration of the results. (3) If any question arises whether a dispute referred to the Registrar under this section is a dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, the decision thereon of the Registrar shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court.” 19. Section 117 of the Act of 2001 provides for bar of jurisdiction of the Courts and same is reproduced as under:- “117. Bar of jurisdiction of Courts - (1) Save as provided in this Act, no civil or revenue court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of, - (a) the registration of a co-operative society or of an amendment of a bye-law; (b) the removal of a committee; and (c) any matter concerning the winding up and the dissolution of a co-operative society or concerning the business of a society under liquidation. [2025:RJ-JP:22997] (10 of 12) [CR-156/2021] (2) Save as provided in this Act, no order, decision or award made under this Act shall be questioned in any court on any ground whatsoever.” 20. When we considered Section 117 then it is apparent that except in three conditions, the jurisdiction of Civil Court is not specifically barred. A pari materia provision was available under Section 137 of the Act of 1965 but it is apparent that after enactment of new Act of 2001, provision under Section 137(1)(c) of the Act of 1965 was repealed and not included under newly amended Section of 117. Earlier, dispute required to be referred to Registrar under Section 75 of the Act of 1965 and same was out of jurisdiction of Civil Court but same is not there in newly amended Section 117 of the Act of 2001. 21. When we consider Section 58 of the Act of 2001 a part of Chapter-X relating to settlement of dispute, wherein provided that if any dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, arises among members, past members and persons claiming through members etc. then such dispute shall be referred to Registrar for decision and no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of such dispute. Further, some clarifications were also made in Sub-section 2 of Section 58 of the Act of 2001. 22. Here in this case, the plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration and also for injunction. Though, a copy of plaint is not filed on record along with documents submitted by plaintiff, therefore, it is very difficult for this Court to go through the plaint and the documents annexed with the plaint. A duty lies upon the [2025:RJ-JP:22997] (11 of 12) [CR-156/2021] petitioners (defendants) to file a relevant documents but if they failed to submit relevant documents then a presumption can be drawn against them only. In order to invoke jurisdiction of Section 58 of the Act of 2001, it is necessary that a dispute must be between members, former members or the person claiming through members or former members. It means, if a dispute is between member and non-member then same cannot be referred under Section 58 of the Act of 2001. 23. Having considered the material on record, this Court cannot go beyond the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, considered in almost identical situation in case of Eldeco Housing and Industries Ltd. Vs. Ashok Vidyarthi and Others : 2023 INSC 1043 [Civil Appeal No.7891/2023 (Order dated 30.11.2023)] by Hon’ble Supreme Court and held that no amount of evidence on merits of the controversy could be examined at the stage of deciding application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 24. The grounds raised by the petitioners require consideration by Civil Court and in absence of copy of plaint and all relevant documents, it is not possible for us to express any opinion on the issues raised herein. Thus, the instant civil revision petition sans merits and liable to be dismissed. 25. In view of discussion made hereinabove, these two Revision Petition Nos.156/2021 and 134/2021 filed aggrieved from the order dated 31.07.2021 in Civil Suit Nos.28/2018 and 48/2018 are hereby dismissed. 26. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. [2025:RJ-JP:22997] (12 of 12) [CR-156/2021] 27. No order as to costs. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/123-124