A dispute touching only the "business" of a society is barred from the jurisdiction of Civil Courts under S. 82 read with S. 64 (1) (c) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, but a dispute involving cancellation of a sale deed executed by a member of the society in favor of a third party does not touch only the "business" of the society and is not barred from the jurisdiction of Civil Courts.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been heard expeditiously because an order passed under O. 7, R. 11 (d), C. P. C. by the trial Court is impugned by the plaintiff-appellant. Court below has taken the view that the suit was barred by the provisions of S. 82 read with S. 64 (1) (e) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 for short the Act.

( 2 ) REJECTION of a plaint is indeed contemplated under Cl. (d) of R. 11 of O. 7, C. P. C. , where "the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law". This would mean, according to me, that parties are not at issue in such a case and indeed the question merely is of law and no investigation into any fact is necessary. Indeed, if the "law" by which exclusion of Civil Court's jurisdiction is contemplated, on its face manifests the requirement of investigation into any fact then there would be no scope for passing order under Cl. (d) aforementioned. In such a case, no leap-frog procedure can be adopted by the trial Court to efface or obliterate the right contemplated under O. 14, C. P. C. , under which parties are allowed to raise "issue" and to call for decision of the trial Court on issues so framed. Indeed, the amended R. 2 of O. 14, C. P. C. in terms contemplate "issue of law" to be raised on pleadings which the trial Court may try as a preliminary issue. To be more precise, R. 3 of O. 14 in terms indicates materials from which issues may be framed and as per clause (b) consideration of "pleadings" is inevitable unless allegations on oath are made by parties as per cl. (a) which may provide, instead, sufficient material to consider if and what issues arise for decision in any case.

( 3 ) IN the instant case, admittedly no written statement was filed by the two defendants. On the other hand, the two defendants jointly filed an application in the trial Court praying for rejection of the plaint under O. 7, R. 11 (d) but allegations in the application were not made on oath. It is also the admitted position that neither side produced any document, as is contemplated under Cl. (c) of R. 3 of O. 14, C. P. C. and the trial Court was not in a position, therefore, to consider and decide the question if parties were at issue on any question of fact or law.

( 4 ) SHRI Arun Mishra, who appears for the respondents/defendants submits that the averments in the plaint were sufficient to vest in the trial Court jurisdiction under O. 7, R. 11 (d) to reject the plaint. But, what those averments are ? According to counsel, they are threefold - (i) that the first defendant was a member of the plaintiff-society; (ii) that first defendant had executed a sale deed in favour of the second defendant in violation of the terms and conditions of the sale deed executed by the plaintiff-society in his favour; and (iii) that the first plaintiff had executed a sale deed in favour of the first defendant. However, counsel concedes that there was a prayer in the plaint for cancellation of the sale-deed which the first defendant had executed in favour of the second defendant and also for removal of the construction made by the second defendant on the suit land which was conveyed by the society to the first defendant.

( 5 ) SECTION 82 undoubtedly bars Civil Court's Jurisdiction in respect of "any dispute required to be referred to the Registrar or his nominee or Board of nominees" under the Act. On referring to Section 64 we read provision concerning "disputes" which are required to be referred to the Registrar as contemplated under S. 82 (1) (c ). I quote Sub-Sec. (1) of S. 64 and only the relevant Cl. (c) thereof, on which reliance is placed by the trial Court in passing the impugned order :-"64. Dispute - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any dispute touching the constitution, management or business of a society or the liquidation of a society shall be referred to the Registrar by any of the parties to the dispute if the parties thereto are am