2003 (3) TMI 778 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 96 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961.
2. Bar on the suit under Section 167 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961.
3. Applicability of Order 7 Rule 11(D) of the Civil Procedure Code for rejection of plaint.
4. Revisional powers of the High Court under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 96 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961:
The plaintiff, a member of the Vimal Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., filed a suit alleging illegal construction by the society on his allotted plot and unauthorized changes in the revenue record. The defendant society argued that the dispute pertained to the business and management of the society, thus falling under Section 96 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, which ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The trial court, however, concluded that the nature of the dispute allowed the Civil Court to have jurisdiction, rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11(D) of the Civil Procedure Code.

2. Bar on the suit under Section 167 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961:
Section 167 mandates a notice period before instituting a suit against a cooperative society. The defendant contended that the plaintiff did not issue the required notice, making the suit barred by law. The plaintiff argued that the dispute involved allegations of encroachment and fabrication of records, which required factual determination and thus could not be summarily dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11(D).

3. Applicability of Order 7 Rule 11(D) of the Civil Procedure Code for rejection of plaint:
The defendant sought rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(D), claiming the suit was barred by Sections 96 and 167 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act. The trial court found that the allegations required factual examination and could not be conclusively determined to be barred by law based solely on the plaint's statements. The court emphasized that the dispute's nature, involving encroachment and record fabrication, necessitated a detailed inquiry, thus rejecting the application for plaint rejection.

4. Revisional powers of the High Court under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code:
The High Court examined whether the trial court's order rejecting the application for plaint rejection under Order 7 Rule 11(D) was subject to revisional jurisdiction. The court noted that its revisional powers are limited to jurisdictional errors, material irregularity, or illegality. It concluded that the trial court had jurisdiction to deal with the application and did not commit any jurisdictional error or material irregularity. The High Court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction should not be used to correct mere errors of law or fact but only to address jurisdictional issues.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, stating that the trial court rightly exercised its jurisdiction in determining that the dispute required factual examination and was not conclusively barred by law based on the plaint's statements. The revision application was dismissed, affirming that the trial court's order did not warrant interference under the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.