SHRI RAM PURUSHARTHI Vs. DINESH TRADING CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rule, at the instance of the defendant No. 1 is directed against the order dated January 30, 1978, passed by the learned Munsif, Pali, in civil suit No. 162 of 1975.

(2.) NON -petitioner No. 1 is the plaintiff. Non -petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The plaintiff -non -petitioner No. 1 instituted suit against the defendant -petitioner and non -petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 for Rs. 4867/ - in the court of Munsif, Pali on November 20, 1975 averring that the plaintiff has supplied goods to defendant No. 1 on credit and that a sum of Rs. 4887/ - is outstanding against defendant No. 1. It was also stated by the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 is a co -operative society registered under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Cc -operative Societies Act, 1960 (No. XVII of 1961)(for short, 'the Act') Defendant No. 1 was served with the notice on the suit for appearing on April 30, 1976 and on that day, an application was filed inter alia stating that according to Section 82(c) of the Act, any dispute touching the constitution, management or business of a society is required to be referred to the Registrar, or his nominee or Board of Nominees and the civil court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit. In that application, reference was also made to Section 64(1) of the Act which deals with disputes. It was, therefore, prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff may be dismissed. The plaintiff filed reply to the application dated April 30, 1676 moved by the defendant No. 1 and amongst others, it was mentioned that the provisions of the Act are applicable only within the State of Madhya Pradesh as such, those provisions cannot be extended to the State of Rajasthan and, therefore, the provisions of the Act are not applicable in the present case. It was also contended that provisions of Section 82(c) of the Act are not applicable as the Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Madhya Pradesh has got no jurisdiction to interfere in the dispute. The learned Munsif, vide his order dated January 30, 1978, held that according to Section 1(2) of the Act. it is applicable only within the State, of Madhya Pradesh and as the suit was instituted in the State of Rajasthan, the provisions of the Act cannot be made applicable to the suit and, therefore, he dismissed defendant No. Vs application with costs which were assessed at Rs. 51/ -. Feeling dissatisfied with the order dated January 30, 1978, defendant No. 1 petitioner has obtained the rule from this Court.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner argued that the suit instituted by the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of Section 82(1)(c) of the Act as it concerned a dispute between the supplier or seller of goods making a claim for the recovery of the balance of the price of the goods supplied in respect of which a cheque is alleged to have been given in the name of the plaintiff and this dispute was referable to the Registrar under Section 64 of the Act for it is a dispute 'touching the business of the Co -operative Society'. Thus, according to the learned Counsel, the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as its cognizance is expressly barred under Section 9, CPC. Mr. K.G. Samdaria on the other hand supponed the order under revision by which the learned Munsif held that the Act is applicable only within the State of M.P. and as the suit was instituted in the State of Rajasthan, the provisions of the Act are not applicable. Relevant portion of Section 64 of he Act reads as under, -