1. Revisionist/defendant No.1 has filed this revision against the order dated 26.8.2016 passed by the Court of IIIrd Civil Judge, Class-II, Guna, whereby an application under Order 7 rule 11 read with section 151 of CPC has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts leading to the present civil revision are that plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction wherein he has sought relief that he be declared as Bhoomiswami and possessor of the land contained in Survey No.25 measuring 0.658 hectare situated at Patwari Halka No.74 at village Nonakhedi, Tahsil Guna, District Guna, and further relief that persons causing obstruction in agricultural activities be restrained from illegal activities and defendant No.1 be stopped from carrying out illegal construction. It was also prayed that permanent injunction be issued against defendant No.1 in interfering in the possession of the land belonging to the plaintiff.

3. An application under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC was filed by defendant No.1, which is a Cooperative Housing Society, seeking dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff on the ground that plaintiff has not made compliance of section 94 of the MP Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Act of 1960'). According to the defendant/revisionist, since defendant is a Cooperative Housing Society registered under the provisions of the Act of 1960, therefore, no suit could have been instituted against the society without giving notice in writing to the Registrar as is required under section 94 and thus the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

4. Respondent No.1 has submitted that he has filed a suit seeking declaration in regard to the land of his ownership and has sought further injunction against defendant No. 1 from interfering in the possession of the land owned and possessed by the plaintiff. Therefore, it is to be examined that whether as per the provisions contained in section 94 of the Act of 1960, notice is required or not.

5. Section 94 of the Act of 1960 reads as under :-

“94. Notice necessary in suits.- No suit shall be instituted against a society or any of its officers in respect of any act touching the constitution, management or business of the society until the expiration of two months-next after notice in writing has been delivered to the Registrar or left at his office, stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims, and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left ”

6. The issue which is to be decided in the present case is whether the plaint allegation deals with any act touching the constitution, management or business of the society.

7. In the present case, revisionist has not filed copy of the bye-laws so to demonstrate that what is the business of the society, but as the name suggests the revisionist is a Co-operative Housing Society. In regard to Cooperative Housing Society provisions contained in section 48(2) are important which says that subject to sub-section (1), the management of every society shall vest in a Board of Directors constituted in accordance with this Act or rules made thereunder or bye-laws of the society and it shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be conferred or imposed respectively by the Act or rules made thereunder or bye-laws of the society. It is also clear that the Cooperative Housing Society will essentially deal with requirement of housing of its members and is required to carry out development of the land allotted to or purchased by the Cooperative Housing Society for the benefit of its members.

8. It is apparent from the application under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC which was filed by the revisionist and enclosed along with this revision as Annexure A-4 that it is mentioned in the application that plaintiff has sought relief of declaration and permanent injunction against the in