The court clarified that statutory bar under Order VII Rule 11(d) requires clear prohibition for dismissal, emphasizing the distinction between jurisdiction and maintainability.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BORKAR, J.

1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition to challenge the Judgment and Order dated 10 February 2025 passed by the Cooperative Appellate Court. That order confirmed the Judgment and Order dated 25 April 2024 of the Cooperative Court No. 2, Pune in Dispute No. 134 of 2022. The Cooperative Court had dismissed the dispute by invoking Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. The petitioners state that they are members of respondent No. 1 cooperative housing society. On 4 October 2022, they instituted Dispute No. 134 of 2022 seeking several declarations. They sought declaration that resolutions passed in the Annual General Meeting and Special General Meeting were illegal. They sought injunction restraining the opponents from acting upon those resolutions. They also sought declaration that the deed of conveyance executed on the strength of the said resolutions was null, void, and not binding. They further sought perpetual injunction restraining opponent Nos. 13 to 28 from creating third party rights. They also sought injunction restraining the opponents from carrying out construction.

3. Respondent Nos. 13, 15 and 28 filed an application dated 3 November 2022 under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking dismissal of the dispute. The petitioners filed a reply opposing the application. After hearing both sides, the Cooperative Court allowed the applications below Exhibit 32 and 44 on 25 April 2024 and rejected Dispute No. 134 of 2022.

4. The petitioners challenged the order of the Cooperative Court by filing Appeal No. 44 of 2024 before the Cooperative Appellate Court. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 10 February 2025. Hence the petitioners have approached this Court in writ jurisdiction.

5. Mr. Soni, learned Advocate for the petitioners, submitted that the Courts below failed to distinguish between objections to maintainability and objections to jurisdiction. He submitted that the respondents raised an objection that the petitioners, being nominal members, lost their status after introduction of Chapter VIII in the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. According to the respondents, such nominal members could not invoke Section 91 and therefore the dispute could not be entertained. He submitted that this objection pertains to jurisdiction. The respondents invoked clauses (a) and (d) of Order VII Rule 11, CPC. He submitted that the petitioners had pleaded all necessary averments to challenge the general body resolutions. He submitted that the respondents could not show which statutory provision specifically bars filing of such dispute. He submitted that clause (d) of Order VII Rule 11 requires a clear statutory bar.

6. He submitted that lack of jurisdiction of the Cooperative Court does not amount to a statutory bar within the meaning of clause (d) of Order VII Rule 11. He submitted that the Cooperative Court held that the parties were not covered under Section 91 . The Cooperative Appellate Court corrected this error and held that the parties fall within . It only held that the subject matter of the dispute does not fall under . He submitted that such finding does not amount to a stat