1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.4.2012 passed in Civil Suit No.36A/2011. An application under Order VII rule 11 of CPC filed by defendants No.1 and 3 has been rejected.

2. Facts necessary for disposal of this petition are to the effect that plaintiff is a cooperative housing society and has filed a suit through its President Rahul Birthare for declaration and permanent injunction seeking declaration to the effect that plot No.12 falling in survey No.163 situated at village Rajpura, District Shivpuri is of plaintiff’s ownership and possession. Further, the registered sale deed dated 10.10.1991 executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 and sale deed dated 22.10.2009 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 be declared as null and void and lastly defendants be restrained from making encroachment over the suit land and raising construction thereupon. Defendant No.1 is the member of plaintiff-society and while he became the member, defendant No.1 had sworn an affidavit on 2.10.1991 that he shall abide by all the rules/bylaws of the society and same shall be binding upon him. Thereafter, by virtue of defendant No.1 being a member of the society, plaintiff executed a sale deed dated 10.10.1991 in his favour in respect of plot No.12 falling in survey No.163 for a consideration of Rs.7,400/- on such terms and conditions imposed by the plaintiff, which inter alia were to the effect that defendant No.1 after the date of execution of sale deed shall construct a house over the plot within two years. Besides, without prior permission of the society defendant No.1 shall have no right to transfer the plot to third person. Further, if no construction of the house is carried out within five years, the plot shall be reverted back to the society. In the instant case neither defendant No.1 constructed the house within two years nor thereafter till the expiry of five years. Therefore, plaintiff after serving notice upon defendant No.1 declared plot No.12 reverted back to the society and stood vested in it. Thereafter, defendant No.1 in order to transfer title of the suit plot by execution of sale deed appointed defendant No.2 as his power of attorney holder, who in turn executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.3 on 22.10.2009 without delivery of possession. This act of defendant No.1 was without knowledge and permission of the society. On aforesaid facts, instant suit has been filed for the reliefs detailed herein-above.

3. Defendants have chosen not to file written statement, instead defendants No.1 and 3 filed an application under Order VII rule 11 of CPC inter alia contending that admittedly the plaintiff-society is a cooperative society and provisions contained under the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) are applicable to it. In view of section 82 of the said Act, the instant suit is barred as the subject matter of the suit is squarely covered within the fold of dispute as defined under the said Act. As such, dispute can be filed before the constituted forum under section 64 of the Act. Hence, suit is barred under Order VII rule 11 (d) of CPC. Plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed reply thereto inter alia contending that the subject matter of the civil suit and the nature of relief claimed cannot be said to be covered within the definition of dispute as defined under the Act and, therefore, the dispute of a nature at hand cannot be filed under section 64 of the Act. Hence, suit is not barred under section 82 of the Act.

4. The scope of order VII rule 11 of CPC and the nature of jurisdiction of the trial Court thereunder has been well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in number of cases. The Supreme Court in the case of Bhau Ram v. Janak Singh and others, (2012) 8 SCC 701 has held as under :

“15. The law has been settled by this Court in various decisions that while considering an application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC, the Court has to examine