High Court Division
(Civil Revisional Jurisdiction)
Gour Gopal Saha J
SK Sinha J
Hilly Housing Co-operative Society Ltd……………Applicant Petitioner
Akhtaruzzaman Chowdhury and ors…………Opposite Parties
June 4, 2001.
Rokanuddin Mahmud with Rabi Shankar Chakraborty, Advocates—For the Petitioner.
Not represented- the opposite parties.
Civil Order No. 3324 of 2001.
SK Sinha J.- This application under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 12-2-2001 passed by the 1st Court of Subordinate Judge, Chittagong in Other Class Suit No. 68 of 1999 rejecting the petitioner’s application under Order 7 rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Opposite Party No. 1 as plaintiff instituted Other Class Suit No. 68 of 1999 in the 1st Court of Subordinate Judge, Sadar Chittagong against the petitioner and others praying for a decree for specific performance of a contract in respect of sale of the suit property.
3. The petitioner as defendant entered appearance before the learned Subordinate Judge and filed an application under Order 7 rule 11 of the of Criminal Procedure praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that sections 86 and 133 of the Co-operative Society Ordinance, 1984 (Ordinance No. 1 of 1985) are bar against the institution of the suit as the matters involved in the suit are compulsorily referable to the Registrar and the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the disputes in question.
4. Mr. Rokanuddin Mahmud, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that in view of the provisions of sections 86 and 133 of the Co-operative Society Ordinance, 1984 the suit is barred under law and the learned Subordinate Judge evidently erred in law in refusing to reject the plaint under Order 7 rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed before us the plaint, the provisions sections 86 and 133 of the Co-operative Society Ordinance, 1984 the application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 rule 11 CPC as well as the written objection filed by the opposite party against it. We have also perused the impugned order. Section 86 of the Co-operative Society Ordinance 1984 provides that any dispute touching the business or affairs of a Co-operative Society or of the liquidator of a Society shall be referred to the Registrar if the parties thereto are amongst the persons specified therein.
6. From a reading of this provision of law it appears to us that the expression “dispute attaching the business or affairs of a Co-operative Society of the liquidator of a society” has reference to the normal functioning of the society itself and its relationship with the members of the society and the employees and office-bearers. An agreement for sale or purchase of property by or on behalf of the Society or questions of title and interest involved in any property cannot be matters of adjudication by the Registrar under section 86 of the Act as these are civil disputes amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court. The expression “dispute” compulsorily referable to the Registrar under section 86 of the Co-operative Society Ordinance, 1984 must have a limited meaning and scope and it is never all embracing to cover all kinds of disputes concerning a Co-operative Society. The jurisdiction of the civil Court to try all disputes of Civil nature affecting the rights of the contending parties under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be taken away lightly but it can be so read only when it is specifically barred under any law. The question of legality or validity of an agreement for sale of a piece of land involving a Co-operative Society and a third party is, therefore, a matter triable by the civil Court and section 86 of Ordinance is no bar against a suit.
7. In the facts of the case, we are of the view that the matters in dispute are exclusively triable by the Civil Court and these are outside the scope of mischief of section 86 of the Co-operative Society Ordinance, 1984. We find no reason to hold that the suit as framed is barred under the law. The learned Subordinate Judge was thus perfectly justified in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for rejection of the plaint. The impugned order is found to be well-reasoned and well-supported by the materials on record. We find no substance in the application.
The application is rejected summarily.