Defendant No.7 in O.S.No.468/2012 is challenging the correctness and legality of order passed by II Civil Judge, JMFC, Mysore, dated 06.09.2013, whereunder objection raised by defendant No.7 regarding maintainability of suit for want of notice issued under Section 125 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 (for short the ‘Act’), has been rejected and plaintiff has been permitted to proceed with the suit, has been called in question in this revision petition.

2. I have heard the arguments of Sri. S.P. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner – defendant No.7 and Sri. Sunil Kumar P. Bangari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. M. Shivaprakash, for respondent Nos.1 (a) to 1(e). Respondents 2 to 7 are served and unrepresented.

3. Short point that is involved in this revision petition is:

“Whether objection raised by defendant No.7 before trial Court regarding non-maintainability of suit for want of issuance of notice by plaintiff under Section 125 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1959, was required to be upheld held by trial Court?”

4. Plaintiff – deceased Sri. Vaikuntegowda instituted a suit in O.S.No.468/2012 against defendants for partition and separate possession claiming half share in the suit schedule property i.e., agricultural land bearing sy.no.246/4 measuring 32 guntas morefully described in plaint schedule on the ground that it is a joint family property and defendants 1 to 5 could not have sold the said property in favour of defendants 6 and 7 under sale deeds dated 27.08.2005 and 16.05.2009.

5. On service of suit summons, defendant No.7 appeared and filed its written statement denying the averments made in plaint and specifically contending that suit against defendant No.7 is not maintainable for want of notice under Section 125 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act having not been issued and as such, suit against defendant No.7 should not be entertained.

6. Trial court after considering the rival contentions raised in this regard, has rejected the said plea of defendant No.7 and held that suit is maintainable on the ground that relief sought for by plaintiff is for partition and possession and it does not relate to the constitution, management or business of society so as to require the plaintiff to issue a notice under Section 125 of the Act vide order dated 06.09.2013, which is under challenge in this revision petition.

7. It is the contention of Sri. S.P. Kulkarni, learned counsel who is appearing on behalf of Sri. K. Srikanth Patil, for revision petitioner with the leave of Court that order passed by trial Court is erroneous, contrary to statutory provision namely, Section 125 of the Act and ignoring the fact that main business of the society is to form sites to sell/allot to its members and non consideration of judgment of the Full

Bench in the case of KRISHI MATTU KSHEERA UTPADAKA VIVIDHODDESHA SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT Vs. SOHANLAL reported in ILR 1992 KAR. 3587 has resulted in an erroneous order being passed and as such, he seeks for setting aside the order passed by trial Court and prays for dismissal of the suit against defendant No.7. In support of his submission he has relied upon the following judgments:

i. ILR 1992 KAR 3587: KRISHI MATTU KSHEERA UTPADAKA VIVIDHODDESHA SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT vs. SOHANLAL

ii. ILR 2004 KAR 1445: THE AROGYANAGAR COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND ANOTHER vs. FAKIRAGOUDA AND ANOTHER

iii. 2009 (1) AIR KAR R 398: BHARATHI WAREHOUSING CORPORATION & ANR. Vs. M/S. SHREESHYLA COOPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE LTD. & ORS.,

iv. ILR 2009 KAR 3838: THE KARNATAKA HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED vs. MANDYA DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED.

8. Per contra, Sri. Sunil Kumar P. Bangari, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1(a) to 1(e) would support the order passed by trial Court.

9. Since the issue or point formulated hereinabove relates to Section 125 of the Act, same is extracted herein below for convenience. It reads as under:

“