Civil Revision No. 188 of 2008 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 188 of 2008
Date of decision: 30.01.2009
The Pearl Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
Narinder Vohra and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND.
Present: Mr. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. S.K.Mahajan, Advocate for respondent no.1.
*****
S.D.ANAND, J.
The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for a direction to the
defendant-petitioner to execute a sale deed in respect of plot No. 113
which had been allotted to him by the petitioner cooperative society (and
also to get it registered).
The pure and simple allegation of the plaintiff-respondent in
the plaint was that he obtained the membership of the society in the year
1980. That the plot under reference was allotted to him, that he had been
making payments towards the purchase of that plot, that the entire
purchase amount has been paid off, that he “has a legal right to get the
sale deed registered in his favour from the defendant Housing Society
regarding that plot no.113 and the defendant Housing society is legally
bound to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of that
plot” and that the defendant-petitioner had not done the needful inspite of
Civil Revision No. 188 of 2008 -2-
****
the fact that even a legal notice through speed post had been served upon
the defendant-society on 2.2.2006 was the further plea of the plaintiff-
respondent.
At the trial, the defendant-petitioner refrained from filing the
pleadings and opted to file an application (Annexure P-2) under Order 7
Rule 11, read with Section 151 C.P.C., for rejection of the plaint. The plea
was essentially based upon the premise that the filing of such a cause was
barred by the provisions of Sections 55 and 82 of the Punjab Cooperative
Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
The learned Trial Judge negatived the plea by holding that
“the jurisdiction of this Court is not barred under the Punjab Cooperative
Societies Act in the present case.”
Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the defendant-
petitioner, argues that the view obtained by the learned Trial Court is
invalid in the light of the provisions contained in Sections 55 and 82 of the
Act. Relevant/relied upon part thereof is reproduced hereunder for facility
of reference:-
55. Disputes which may be referred to arbitration :- (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time
being in force, if any dispute touching the constitution,
management or the business of a coo-operative society
arises:-
(a) xx xx xx
(b) between a member, past member or person claiming
through a member past member or deceased member and the
society, its committee or any office, agent or employee of the
society or liquidator, past or present; or
Civil Revision No. 188 of 2008 -3-****
( c) xx xx xx
(d) xx xx xx”
82. Bar of jurisdiction of Court (1) Save as provided in this
Act, no civil or revenue Court shall have any jurisdiction in
respect of:-
(a) xx xx xx (b) xx xx xx (c) any dispute required under Section 55 to be referred to the Registrar; and (d) xx xx xx"A conjunctive perusal of the above provisions of the Act would
indicate that the view obtained by the learned Trial Court deserves
affirmation. In that context, it may be noticed Sub Section (2) of Section
55 defines the disputes which are “deemed to the disputes touching the
constitution, management or the business of co-operative society.” That
provision is reproduced hereunder for facility of reference:-
“(2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), the following be
deemed to the disputes touching the constitution, management
or the business of co-operative society, namely:-
(a) a claim by the society for any debt or demand due to it
from a member or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives
of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be
admitted or not;
(b) a claim by a society against the principal debtor where
the society has recovered from the surety any amount in
respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal
debtor as a result of the default of the principal debtor, whether
Civil Revision No. 188 of 2008 -4-****
such debt or demand is admitted or not;
( C) any dispute arising in connection with the election of any
Officer of the society.”
It is established law otherwise that the aspect of jurisdiction is
to be decided on the basis of allegation in the plaint. In this case, the only
relief sought by the plaintiff/respondent is for a direction to the defendant-
petitioner to execute ( a registered sale deed in respect of the plot under
reference which is allotted to him as a member of the Cooperative Society
and for which the entire payment had been made by the plaintiff-
respondent as a member of the society. That controversy, judged on the
touch stone of definitive provision of Sub-section 2 of of Section 55 of the
Act, cannot be said to be relate-able to ” the constitution, management or
the business of co-operative society”. It is correct that there is an averment
in the application (filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11
C.P.C.) that membership of plaintiff-respondent had been cancelled.
However, the date thereof is not indicated in that application which
(application) also does not, at all, give an idea about the circumstances
under which the membership of the plaintiff-respondent came to be
cancelled.
The specific averment made by the plaintiff-respondent, with
regard to the payment of entire dues ( as the sale price of the plot under
reference) to the society, does not appear to have been denied on facts. If
there was a controversy about that fact, the defendant-petitioner could
have indicated that fact in the application filed (under Order 7 Rule 11
C.P.C.) itself, even if it wanted to refrain from filing the pleadings at the
trial.
The right of a purchaser to get a sale deed executed (whether
Civil Revision No. 188 of 2008 -5-
****
from an individual or a cooperative society) is a civil right vested in him
which has nothing, at all, to do with the the constitution, management or
the business of co-operative society. The grant or otherwise of that type of
relief can be considered only by the Civil Court.
In the light of the fore-going discussion, the petition is held to
be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed.
January 30, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge