1 2025:CGHC:20554 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 520 of 2021  Suryamani Pandey S/o Late Ramjanam Pandey Aged About 57 Years R/o- Bijuri, Police Station- Bijuri, District- Anuppur (Madhya Pradesh) At Present R/o- Ramkrishna Nagar Mopka, Police Station- Sarkanda, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Mo. No.- 8770531792, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of The Co- Operative Societies, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Indrawati Bhawan, Raipur District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Societies Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. Liquidator Sarkari Karmchari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Maryadit Mopka, Tahsiland District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5. Akhilesh Tiwari S/o- Divjendra Nath Tiwari Aged About 44 Years R/o- Gayanti Mandir Marg Vidya Nagar Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ratnesh Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No. 5 : Dr. Kumaresh Tiwari, Advocate 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 05-05-2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records of the case, from the authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 08.09.2020 passed by respondent no. 3 wherein registered the case (Annexure-P/1) and further be please to quash the order dated 05.01.2021 passed by respondent no. 3 (Annexure-P/2) and allow the application under order 7 rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 5 has raised a dispute under Sections 64 and 67(1) of the Chhattisgarh Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 read with Order 39 Rules 1, 2 and 3 of CPC against the petitioner and respondent No. 4 before the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies. He further submits that respondent No. 5 pleaded that the petitioner has encroached over Plot No. 437 situated at Village Mopka, Tehsil and District Bilaspur, which was purchased from Sarkari Karmchari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Maryadit, Mopka. Respondent No. 5 further alleged that the petitioner has started raising construction, therefore the application for temporary injunction was moved before the Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Bilaspur and vide order dated 3 14.09.2020 it was allowed. He further contends that the petitioner was served with the notice on 15.10.2020 and thereafter, he moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC on the ground that the dispute raised by respondent No. 5 is not maintainable as there is no dispute touching the constitution, management or business, terms and conditions of employment of society or the liquidation of a society. He argues that respondent No. 5 filed a reply to the application and denied its contents. He further argues that the learned Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Bilaspur vide order dated 05.01.2021 rejected the application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. He prays to set-aside the order dated 08.09.2020 and the proceeding pending before respondent No. 3. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 opposes. He has referred to Section 64 (1)(b) of the Act, 1960. He submits that the dispute is between a member and a past member of the society, therefore, the dispute raised by respondent No. 5 is maintainable before the Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Bilaspur. 4) Learned State counsel supports the order passed by respondent No. 3. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6) Section 64(1) of the Act, 1960 reads as under:- 64. Disputes - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any dispute touching the constitution, management or business, terms and conditions of employment of a society or the liquidation of a society shall be referred to the Registrar] by any of the parties to the dispute if the parties thereto are among the following: (a) a society, its ³[Board], any past ³[Board], any past or present officer, any past or present agent, any past or present servant or a nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased agent or deceased servant of the society, or the liquidator 4 of the society; (b) a member, past member or a person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member of a society or of a society which is a member of the society; (c) a person other than a member of the society who has been granted a loan by the society or with whom the society has or had business transactions and any person claiming through such a person; (d) a surety of a member, past member or deceased member or a person other than a member who has been granted a loan by the society, whether such a surety is or is not a member of the society; (e) any other society or the liquidator of such a society; and (f) a creditor of a society. A bare reading of this section would make it clear that the dispute touching the constitution, management or business, terms and conditions of employment of society or the liquidation of a society may be referred to the Registrar by a society or any past or present officer, any past or present agent; any past member or present member of the society who has been granted a loan by the society or; a surety of a member or; any other society or the liquidator of such a society; and a creditor of a society. 7) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bhanushali Housing Co- operative Society Limited Versus Mangilal & Ors. reported in 2015 (10) SCC 277 has held that when a dispute is referred to the Registrar under Section 64, twin additive requirements of Section 64 – firstly, that dispute must “touch constitution, management or business, or the liquidation of a society”, and secondly, parties to dispute must fall within clauses (a) to (f) of Section 64(1). Relevant para of the aforementioned judgment is reproduced herein below:- 5 “A careful reading of the above would show that for a dispute to be brought within the purview of Section 64 two essential requirements must be satisfied viz. (1) that the dispute must "touch the constitution, management or business of the society or must relate to the liquidation of the cooperative society": and (ii) that the dispute must be between parties referred to in clauses "a to f" of Section 64(1) (supra). It is only when the twin requirements are in the facts and circumstances of a given case satisfied that a dispute can be said to be amenable to adjudication under Section 64. Failure of any one of the two requirements would take the dispute beyond the said provision.” 8) In the present case, respondent No. 5 was allotted Plot No. 437 by Sarkari Karmchari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Maryadit, Mopka. As alleged, the petitioner encroached over some part of that plot, therefore, respondent No. 5 raised a dispute and sought relief of permanent injunction against the petitioner herein. The petitioner moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC inter-alia on the ground that there is a dispute between two private parties and therefore, the dispute is not maintainable before the Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Bilaspur but the application was rejected. 9) Prima-facie, it appears that there is a dispute between respondent No. 5 and the petitioner with regard to the subject property and co-operative society or its members are not involved at all. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, respondent No. 5 should have instituted a civil suit before the competent civil Court claiming therein declaration of title and permanent injunction and the dispute raised under Section 64 (1) of the Act, 1960 is not maintainable, thus, respondent No. 3 committed an error of law while rejecting the application moved by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. 10) As a result, the order passed by the Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Bilaspur dated 08.09.2020 is hereby set-aside, the application 6 moved by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC stands allowed and the dispute raised by respondent No. 5 is dismissed. 11) Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. Sd /- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya AJINKYA PANSARE Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.05.08 10:54:48 +0530