A Civil Suit would be maintainable unless expressly barred by any other law. Disputes touching the constitution, management, or the business of a cooperative society are to be referred to the Registrar for decision, and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in such cases. A revision petition before the Government is not maintainable if an appeal is provided under the Act. Orders passed without jurisdiction are non est. The rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is justified if the suit falls within the scope of a provision that bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri.N.D.Sathishchandra, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.S.N.Prashant Chandra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Smt.M.V.Adithi, learned AGA for respondent No.2.

2. These four appeals are preferred against the common Judgment passed in O.S.No.2340/2004, O.S.No.2342/2004, O.S.No.2343/2004, O.S.No.2344/2004 and O.S.No.2345/2004 dated 27.02.2006, whereunder the learned Trial Judge entertained the applications filed by the first defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and allowed the same and rejected the plaint and directed the plaintiff to approach the relevant authority under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 (herein after referred to as 'Act' for short), for the redressal of the grievance.

3. Brief facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of these appeals are as under.

4. Plaintiff being a Co-Operative Society Ltd. registered under the provisions of Act, was functioning in the cause title address. On account of certain alleged miss deeds in the Society, the matter was referred to the Registrar and Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (in short 'JRCS') by few of the members and the Registrar of Co-Operative Society by order dated 19.05.2003, appointed a Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (in short 'DRCS') Bangalore City-I, as the Special Officer to take the charge of the affairs of the Society in toto.A photo copy of the said order is produced before this Court today along with a memo by the appellant.

5. Appointment of the Special Officer to the plaintiff-Society was an appealable order as per Section 106(e-1) as the order of the appointment of Special Officer is Under Section 31 of the Act.

6. However, for the reasons best known to the plaintiff, order of the appointment of Special Officer was not challenged before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (Co-Operative) under Section 106(e-1) of the Act, but the plaintiff chose to approach the Government under Section 108 of the Act, by filling a Revision Petition in RP.No.CMW/39/CAP2003.

7. The then Hon'ble Minister acting under the powers of under Section 108 of the Act, stayed the appointment of Special Officer by order dated 11.06.2003 till next date of hearing. Next date was fixed as 30.07.2003.

8. It is contended by the plaintiff that on 30.07.2003 there was no sitting and the matter could not be taken up further. In the interregnum, the Special Officer said to have executed registered sale/conveyance deed in favour of the first respondent in all these cases on 11.08.2003, whereby a flat in the occupation of first respondent in all these appeals. Said action of the Special Officer is called in question in all these suits.

9. After the suit summons were issued, the first respondent, who is the first defendant in the Court below, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC inter alia contended that Civil Court has no jurisdiction in view of Section 70 of the Act 1959 and therefore, sought for rejection of the plaint.

10. Application filed by the first defendant was opposed by the plaintiff by filing the written objection.

11. Learned Trial Judge heard the parties in detail in respect of the application filed by the first defendant in all these suits under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and by virtue of impugned common order allowed the applications filed by the first defendant in all these suits and rejected the plaint with liberty to approach the authorities under the provisions of the Act by raising necessary dispute and seek redressal of the grievance of the plaintiff.

12. The validity of said common order passed by the Learned Additional City Civil Judge (CCH-19) dated 27.02.2006 is the subject matter of these appeals.

13. Sri.N.D.Sathishchandra, learned counsel reiterating the grounds of the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that the rejection of the plaint by the Trial Court acting under the powers vested in the Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and directing the appellant to exhaust the remedy before the authoriti