The main legal point established is that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court can be invoked under Section 9 CPC if principles of natural justice are violated, even if jurisdiction is barred under specific statutes.

JUDGMENT

Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Petitioners have assailed the order dated 13.09.2016 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, whereby the application filed by the defendants/petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.

2. Plaintiff/respondent filed a civil suit for permanent, prohibitory and mandatory injunction against the defendants on the ground that the plaintiff availed the loan from defendant No.1 for purchase of agriculture land. Account No.20/95 was issued on 30.01.2006 in the name of the plaintiff. With the aforesaid loan, plaintiff purchased the agriculture land. Due to some financial problem and destruction of agriculture crop, produce etc., plaintiff was irregular towards payment of loan instalments in her loan account. Plaintiff alleged that when she went to the bank in the month of February 2015 to deposit some money in her loan account, then she came to know through other customers of the bank that there was subsidy of 50% in the loan account as per policy of the Government and the same was not advanced to the plaintiff. On being contacted, defendant No.1 assured to regularize the loan of the plaintiff as per policy. On such assurance, the plaintiff after arranging the money in the month of March 2015, went to defendant No.1/Bank for repayment of dues for the purpose of regularize her loan account, but defendant No.1 did not pay any heed and the benefit of rebate was not given and the account was not regularised. In the month of July 2015, the plaintiff went to bank and saw her poster affixed by the defendant on the wall of the bank and also at other places in District Faridabad to defame and humiliate the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 refused to take any corrective measure and did not correct the interest in the loan account of the plaintiff.

3. Plaintiff further pleaded that she visited the office of defendant No.2, where defendant No.2 assured to remove the photos of the plaintiff in the poster and to grant 50% relief in the interest rate as per Government scheme in the loan of the plaintiff. Thereafter, no progress was made except the assurance granted by the plaintiff in respect of interest rate as per policy of the Government under subvention scheme.

4. In para No.14 of the plaint, plaintiff pleaded to the following effect:-

"That the plaintiff on the replied of defendant No.1 and 2 also approach to the defendant No.3 through legal notice on dated 16.02.2016 through the counsel Deepak Kumar Bhati, Advocate, Faridabad wherein the plaintiff again asked the interest relief as per the Govt. instruction within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the said notice and copy sent to the defendant No.1 and 2. It is astonishment to the plaintiff when the defendant to escape the liability to reply the legal notice, interest relief etc. came on dated 09.03.2016 to the house of the plaintiff gave the auction sale letter for the sale of property as describe in para No.5 of the plaint on dated 10.03.2016 in spite to reply the said legal notice and to accede the legitimate request of the plaintiff. Copy of legal notice dated 16.02.2016 and postal receipt, auction sale letter in Annexure as P-9 to P-11."

5. Perusal of the aforesaid para would show that on 09.03.2016, defendant came to the house of the plaintiff and issued auction sale letter for the sale of the property on the next day i.e. 10.03.2016. The aforesaid act was done only after the legal notice got issued by the plaintiff on 16.02.2016 through her Advocate.

6. Learned counsel for the defendants/petitioners vehemently contended that jurisdiction of the Civil Court is specifically barred under Section 128 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act 1984. Learned counsel contended that the bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court would apply to the dispute which is covered under Section 102 of the Act for which the dispute could have been referred to the Arbitration. The controversy in question falls under the ambit of Section 102 of the Act. Sectio