1. The plaintiff being aggrieved with the concurrent judgments of the two Courts below has approached this Court by way of second appeal under section 100 of CPC. Trial Court while allowing the respondent's application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC by judgment dated 7.7.2008 had dismissed the suit of appellant and the first appellate Court vide judgment dated 28.2.2009 by dismissing the appeal has affirmed the judgment of trial Court.

2. In brief the appellant had filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction pleading that plot No.42 was purchased in the name of his mother Geetabai and plot No.41 was purchased in the name of his father Badridas. The suit plot was received by appellant in the family partition. Further plea was raised that Geetabai had obtained loan of Rs.2 lacs from respondent No.1 bank in the year 2001 and had mortgaged the plot No.42 and security of plot No.41 was given by appellant's father Badridas. It was further pleaded that during her lifetime the mother of appellant had repaid the sum of Rs.5 lacs but the accounts were not finalized by respondent No.1 and the recovery proceedings were initiated on the ground that sum of Rs.2,10,000/- was unpaid. An application was filed by respondent No.1 before the Joint Registrar and the Joint Registrar by the order dated 22.7.2003 had issued the recovery certificate and when appellant came to know about it on 5.3.2008 the present suit was filed on the ground that order was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant and the order was illegal and improper.

3. Respondent No.1 had filed an application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC raising the plea that plots No.41 and 42 were mortgaged with respondent No.1 bank and the amount was not not repaid and account had become NPA, therefore, the respondent No.1 had taken proceedings before the Joint Registrar who had the sole jurisdiction to decide such a dispute under the provisions of MP Cooperative Societies Act and the final order dated 22.7.2003 was passed and recovery certificate was issued and in pursuance thereto property of the borrower as well as the guarantor have been auctioned and sale deed has been executed and possession has been delivered by respondent No.2, hence the suit filed by appellant is barred under section 82 of the Act and rule 66(6) of MP Cooperative Societies Rules.

4. Trial Court by judgment dated 7.7.2008 had allowed the said application on reaching to the conclusion that suit filed by appellant is barred under section 82 of the Act and had accordingly dismissed the suit and the first appellate Court has affirmed the said order.

5. This Court vide order dated 6.11.2009 had admitted the appeal on following substantial questions of law :

1. Whether the suit as filed by appellant was barred under section 82 of MP Co-operative Societies Act ?

2. Whether the suit of the appellant has rightly been dismissed under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC on the issue of jurisdiction ?

6. Considering the nature of controversy I am of the opinion that Question No.2 needs to be decided first and accordingly it is being decided as under:-

7. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the order passed by the Joint Registrar under section 84 A(i) was in nullity in as much as it was passed without giving any notice to the borrower Geetabai or her LR i.e. the present appellant. He further submits that before the Joint Registrar no opportunity of hearing was given to the original borrower and her LR, therefore, the procedure prescribed was not followed, hence the civil Court's jurisdiction has rightly been invoked. He further submits that even at the subsequent stage of auction of the suit property, notice was issued in the name of Geetabai who was dead at that time therefore the bar of section 82 cannot be attracted because of the procedural lapse. He has further submitted that trial Court has allowed respondent's application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC at a stage when even the written statement was not file