SHYAM LAL Vs. SHUSHIL RUIAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil first appeal u/s 96 C.P.C has been preferred by the plaintiffs-appellants against the judgment and order dated 13.5.2003 of the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Sikar, allowing the application Of the defendants-respondents No. 1 and 6 filed under order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that a suit for permanent injunction was instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendants stating therein that Shri Krishna Go Shala is a registered society under the provisions of the Rajasthan Registration of Societies Act, 1965 (in short the Act'). The trustees had no power to make new members without calling an annual general meeting. No annual general meeting was convened since 1982 which was necessary under the Constitution and the Rules of the society. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were not legally appointed trustees. On 8.10.2001, an audit report was submitted by respondent No. 10. But he then submitted another special audit report under the influence of some persons on 23.11.2002 without there being any basis for the same and it was based on false facts. No election was held inspite of several requests in this behalf. The suit was, therefore, filed after seeking permission u/s 80 C.P.C. r/w Section 143 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act praying that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 be restrained by a permanent injunction from representing themselves as trustees untill they were approved to be trustees of the society in the annual general meeting. It was also prayed that they be restrained from treating other persons as members who were not elected by the executive and were not legally authorised members. An application for temporary injunction was also moved together with the suit.

(3.) Defendant Nos. 1 and 6 moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. on 30.4.2003 stating that the suit was barred u/ ss 75 and 137 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (in short the 'Act of 1965') from being entertained by civil court. It was also alleged that the suit was not maintainable without prior notice u/s 143 of the Act. This application was contested by and on behalf of plaintiffs. Learned court below after hearing the learned counsel for the parties allowed the application and dismissed the suit under order 7 Rule 1l(d) C.P.C. being barred u/s 75 r/w Sec- tion 137 of the Act of 1965 as it was of the view that the dispute raised in the suit touched the constitution, management and business of the co-operative society.