1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL REVISION APPICATION NO. 313 OF 2008

Shri Mithailal Singh & Ors.

...

Petitioners

(Org.Defendants)

Vs.

Smt. Madhavi Jeetpratap Singh & Ors.

...

Respondents

Mr. Surel S. Shah Advocate, for the applicant.

Mr.R.S.Apte, Senior Counsel i/b. A.A.Garge,Advocate, for the respondents 1 & 2.

CORAM:

J.H.BHATIA, J.

DATE :

28th April, 2010.

P.C.

1.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2.

The respondent No. 1 had previously filed Writ Petition NO.5277 of

2007 challenging a certificate under Section 101 of the Co-operative Societies Act

for recovery of certain amounts. That writ petition was allowed to be withdrawn

with the observations made by this Court in the order dated 19.7.2007 that the

question as to whether loan documents bear the forged signatures of the petitioner

or otherwise has to be gone into by the competent Civil Court. The writ petition

was withdrawn with liberty to file a suit and applications therein for interim reliefs

2

before the appropriate Civil Court. Thereafter, the respondents nos. 1 and 2 filed

Regular Civil Suit no.96/2008. In that suit, an application under Sec.9A read with

Sec.151 of the C.P.C. was filed by some of the defendants challenging jurisdiction

of the Civil Court on the grounds that the suit was not properly valued and the

Civil Judge, J.D. had no jurisdiction, that the plaintiffs are the sureties of the

members of the Society who had taken loan and therefore only Co-op. Court had

jurisdiction and that the mandatory notice under Sec. 164 of the Co-op. Societies

Act was not issued. The trial Court held that it had jurisdiction because, according

to the plaintiffs, the documents are forged and whole claim of the defendants is

based on the forged documents. That finding is challenged in the present

Revision Application.

3.

The learned Counsel for the revision applicant/defendants pointed out

that in view of the provisions of Section 91(1)(d) when the dispute pertains to

management of business of society and it is between the Society and its member

or the surety of a member or a past member, the dispute will lie before the Co-op.

Court and under sub-sec. (3), the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded.

However, the Civil Court will not lose the jurisdiction if the claim of the Co-op.

Society is based on the forged documents against the plaintiff, who claims that he

was never a surety of the member. In the present case, the suit is exactly based on

3

the contention that the documents on which the claim of the Bank against the

plaintiff is based are forged documents. Admittedly the principal borrower, who is

defendant No.8, is son of the plaintiff and it appears that he is also the grandson-

in- law of the Chairman of the Bank. If the documents are forged, the jurisdiction

of the Civil court to give necessary declaration cannot be taken away under Sec.

91(3), but if the documents are genuine, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court will be

ousted and the parties will have to seek relief either by filing a dispute before the

Co-operative Court or by filing a revision application before the Joint Registrar,

Co-operative Societies. Therefore, it is necessary to find out whether the

documents are not genuine. The trial Court has not given any such finding

because no evidence was led by any of the parties in this respect.

4.

In view of the above circumstances, in my considered opinion, the

following order will meet the ends of justice:

The trial Court shall call upon the parties to lead evidence as the

genuineness of the said documents and if any of the parties require, the documents

may be referred to the handwriting expert also. If the documents are found to be

forged, the trial Court shall proceed to decide the suit, but if the contention of the

plaintiffs that the documents are forged is found to be false, the trial Court will

4

n