( 1 ) THIS appeal has been heard expeditiously because an order passed under Order 7, Rule 11 (d), C. P. C. by the trial Court is impugned by the plaintiff-appellant. Court below has taken the view that the suit wai barred by the provisions of Section 82 read with Section 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 Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 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 Clause (d) aforementioned. In such a case, no leading procedure can be adopted by the trial Court to efface or obliterate the right contemplated under order 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 Rule 2 of Order 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, Rule 3 of Order 14 id 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 clause (a) which may provide, instead, sufficient material to consider if and what issues arise lor 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 Order 7, Rule 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 Clause (c) of Rule 3 of Order 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 Order 7, Rule 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 laud which was conveyed by the Society to the first defendant.

( 5 ) SECTION 82 undoubtedly bars Civil Courts Jurisdiction in raspect 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 Section 82 (1) (c ). I quote sub section (1) of Section 64 and only the relevant Clause (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 Regi