The main legal point established in the judgment is that disputes falling within the purview of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, must be referred to the Registrar, and the civil court does not have jurisdiction to entertain such disputes.

( 1 ) THE appellant has challenged the judgment dated 11-7-2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the learned judge has quashed and set aside the order dated 28-4-2000 passed by the Additional civil Judge (Junior Division), Jaipur (East) and has remanded the case back to the learned Magistrate.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff had filed a civil suit wherein he had claimed that he had purchased a plot. Plot No. 23 situated in Vijay nagar Scheme, J. L. N. Marg, Jaipur from shri Laxmi Narayanpuri Bhawan Nirmal sahkari Samiti Ltd. , Jaipur (henceforth to be referred to as the society, for short ). Since 1981 he is in possession of the said plot. However, after handing over the possession to him, the society tried to reduce the size of his plot and tried to issue an amended allotment letter. The plaintiff cautioned the society against it. It was further claimed that plot Nos. 25 and 26 were bought by the pro forma respondent/defendant no. 1. The defendant No. 1 and her husband in collusion with the society members wanted to encroach upon the plaintiffs plot. Therefore, the suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is the sole owner and in possession of the plot No. 23 in question and for permanent injunction was filed.

( 3 ) THE appellant and the defendant No. 1 filed an application under Order 7. Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (henceforth to be referred to as the Code for short)stating therein that the civil suit was barred under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (henceforth to be referred to as the Act of 1965, for short) as well as under Section 137 of the Act of 1965. Vide order dated 28-4-2000, the learned trial court held that the suit was, indeed, barred by the above-mentioned sections and, therefore, dismissed the said suit under Order 7, rule 11 of the Code. Since the plaintiff was aggrieved by the said order, he filed an appeal before the learned Judge. Vide judgment dated 11-7-2000, the learned Judge quashed and set aside the order dated 28-4-2000 and remanded the case back to the learned trial Court. Hence, this appeal before this Court by the defendant No. 2 in the original suit.

( 4 ) MR. Mahendra Goyal, the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No. 2, has vehemently argued that according to the order 7, Rule 11 (d) of the Code, where the suit appears from the statement in plaint to be barred by any law, the plaint shall be rejected. According to Section 75 of the Act of 1965, in case a dispute touching the constitution, management, or the business of a co-operative society arises among members, past members and person claiming though members, past members and deceased members, then such a dispute is to be referred to the Registrar of the Co-operative societies for decision and no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or any proceeding in respect of such dispute. Similarly. Section 137 of the Act of 1965 prohibits the jurisdiction of the civil or revenue court in respect of any dispute covered under section 75 of the Act of 1965 to be referred to the Registrar, co-operative Societies. Therefore, according to the leaned counsel, the suit filed by the plaintiff was clearly barred under the Act of 1965. Since the bare perusal of the plaint clearly revealed that the dispute was between the two members of the same society and involved another member who had purchased the property through a past member, therefore, the suit was clearly barred under Section 75 read with Section 137 of the Act of 1965. Since the prohibition of the law was so apparent on the face of record, the learned trial Court had rightly dismissed the suit. But the learned Judge has unnecessarily and illegally held that an issue needs to be framed on the point whether such suit is barred or not under the provisions of the Act of 1965. According to the learned counsel, there is no need of framing of such