Judgment

Mr. Arun Monga, J.

Petition herein is for setting aside order dated 09.03.2023 (Annexure P-5), whereby the application moved by petitioner, under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint, was dismissed.

2. Succinct facts first, as pleaded in the instant petition.

2.1. Respondents No.1 to 6 are residents of Crescent Parc, Royal Greens Condominium, Sector 92, Wazirpur, Gurugram. Petitioner being President of M/s Royal Green Owners Association has, with the consent of members, appointed respondent No.7 i.e. maintenance company for maintenance of M/s Royal Green complex. Thereafter, petitioner called a meeting of the Association and for the welfare of Association and with the consent of its members and on the demand of respondent No.7-maintenance company increased the maintenance charges. From the entire Welfare Association, respondents No.1 to 6 have raised objections with regard to increasing of maintenance charges. Due to the said increasing of maintenance charges, respondents No.1 to 6 became furious and they filed a suit for declaration with permanent and mandatory injunction and rendition of true accounts of the maintenance. In the suit, said respondents have also levelled allegations against petitioner regarding threat for disconnection of their electricity bill.

2.2. Upon notice, petitioner appeared and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC stating that suit is not maintainable since jurisdiction of civil court is expressly barred under Section 89 of Haryana Registration and Regulations of Society Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2012’). Respondents No.1 to 6 filed reply to the application. However, vide impugned order the said application was dismissed by Ld. Trial Court, the relevant part of which is reproduced herein below:-

“xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

9. Thus, after having heard the arguments advanced by Ld, counsel for both the parties and after having gone through the contents of the plaint and the case laws relied upon by Ld. counsel for both the parties, this court is of the considered view that the plaintiffs have sought the remedy of injunction against defendant No. 1 who happens to be president of RWA. This court is of the considered view that there are specific allegations of violation of mandatory provisions of Haryana Registration and Regulations of Society Act 2012. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has categorically held that in landmark judgment rendered in Dhula Bhai and Ors Versus the State of Madhya Pradesh &Ors. 1968 (3) SCR 662 SC wherein it was held that where the statutes gives a finality to the orders of the special tribunals, the Civil Court, jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil courts would normally do in a suit. Such provisions, however, does not exclude those cases where the provision of particular Act have not been complied with or the statute tribunals has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure.

10. The same legal preposition has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in latest case law reported as South Delhi Municipal Corporation and another Versus M/s Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd 2019 (3) PLR 785 SC wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Jurisdiction of Civil court cannot be completely taken away in spite of express or implied bar. Civil court shall have jurisdiction to examine matter in which there is allegation of non-compliance of provisions of statute or any fundamental principle of judicial procedure.

11. It is also settled preposition of law that at the time of deciding application moved under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC no other document can be looked into by the court except the averments made in the plaint only. In this regard reliance can