JUDGMENT :

Manish Pitale, J.

Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties.

2. The applicants herein are the original defendants who have challenged the order dated 05.04.2017 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khamgaon (trial Court) rejecting their application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. The facts leading to filing of the instant revision application are that the respondents herein (original plaintiffs) filed Special Civil Suit No. 5 of 2013 for recovery of money against the applicants herein. It was claimed by the respondents that the applicants had placed orders for purchasing cotton bales and that they had failed to pay balance amount in respect of the said transactions. In this suit, the applicants appeared and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming that the suit was barred by the provisions of West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006. It was pleaded that under Section 102 of the aforesaid Act, any dispute between the Cooperative Society like applicant No.1 herein and any person having transaction with it, shall be resolved by approaching the Registrar appointed under the said Act and that Civil Courts were barred from entertaining any proceedings in respect of such dispute. On this basis, it was contended that the suit for recovery filed by the respondents was barred by law and that the plaint deserved to be rejected. The respondents resisted the said application and contended that the Civil Court had jurisdiction in the matter and that the plaint could not be rejected at the threshold.

4. By the impugned order dated 05.04.2017, the trial Court has considered the provisions of the aforesaid Act and it has come to the conclusion that since the respondents were not members of the applicant/ Cooperative Society, it could not be said that they were required to approach only the Registrar under the said Act and that the suit could not be said to be barred by law. On this basis, the trial Court rejected the aforesaid application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision application has been filed.

5. Shri Mohata, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the provisions of the said Act, particularly Sections 102(1)(d) and 102(4) read with Section 4(25) of the said Act, while passing the impugned order. It is contended that a proper reading of the said provision would show that a dispute between a cooperative society registered under the said Act and any person having transaction with it, was necessarily required to be decided by the Registrar under the said Act and the Civil Court was barred from exercising jurisdiction for resolution of such dispute. It was submitted that there were provisions in the said Act pertaining to appeals for challenging the order of the Registrar.

6. Learned Counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgment of the Special Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Anjan Choudhury .v. Anandaneer Cooperative Registered Housing Society and others, (1990) AIR Calcutta 380, concerning a paramateria provision wherein Special Bench held that a plaint was liable to be rejected in circumstances similar to those in the present case.

7. Shri Saboo, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposes the contentions raised on behalf of the applicants herein. It is submitted that the contentions raised on behalf of the applicants were a matter of trial and that the plaint could not be rejected at the threshold.

8. A perusal of the relevant provisions in the present case is necessary to decide whether the impugned order passed by the trial Court was justified. The relevant provisions of the aforesaid Act read as follows :

"(25) "dispute" means any matter capable of being the subject of civil litigation, and includes a claim in respect of any sum