Civil Courts have jurisdiction over disputes regarding agreements to sell flats, as such disputes do not pertain to the business of Cooperative Societies under the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed the order dated 31.05.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Gurugram, whereby his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint in Civil Suit No.1601 of 2024 titled as “Amit Kumar and another v. Narinder Prakash Gupta and another”, has been dismissed.

2. A perusal of the paper book would reveal that based upon an agreement to sell dated 04.02.2016 in respect of Flat No.416 (Share Certificate No.52 dated 05.05.2012) in defendant No.2-Society (respondent No.3 herein), plaintiffs — Amit Kumar and Bimla Yadav (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) filed a suit for declaration, specific performance and permanent injunction against defendant -— Narinder Prakash Gupta (petitioner herein) and the Society. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was moved by defendant No.1 to reject the plaint on the ground that jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred in view of the provisions of Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’); that a petition filed under the provision of the said Act by defendant No.1 was already pending before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and that suit for declaration and specific performance without seeking possession was not maintainable. The said application has been rejected by the trial Court by way of impugned order.

3. It is contended by learned counsel that Section 102 of the Act to be read with Section 128 of the Act specifically bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain the suit against the Society and as such the suit itself was not maintainable, particularly, when the petition moved by the petitioner-defendant before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies was already pending.

4. Section 128 of the Act reads as under:-

“102. Disputes for arbitration :-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute touching the constitution, establishment, management or the business of a cooperative society arises :-

(a) among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past member or deceased member; or

(b) between a member, past member or persons claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the society, its committee or any officer, agent or employee or the society or liquidator, past or present; or

(c) between the society or its committee and any past committee, any officer, agent or employee or any past officer, agent or employee or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, agent or employee of the society: or

(d) between the society and any other society; between a society and liquidator of another society or between the liquidator of one society and the liquidator of another society;

Such disputes shall be referred to arbitration of the Registrar for decision and no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute.”

5. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the dispute in the present case is between members of the society and so, same is required under Section 102 to be referred to the Arbitration of the Registrar and as such, the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is barred.

6. Section 102 of the Act reads as under:-

“Section 128. Bar of jurisdiction of courts:-

(1) Save as provided in this Act, no civil court, revenue court, industrial tribunal or labour court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of :-

(a) the registration of a co-operative society or its byelaws or of an amendment of bye-law;

(b) the removal of a committee;

(c) any depute required under section 102 to be referred to the arbitration of the Registrar or any matter in which proceeding under section 104 have been initiated; or

(d) any matter concerning the winding up and dissolution of a cooperative society.”

5. A bare perusal of the abovesaid provisions would indicate that only tho