Source : Rajasthan Law Weekly

1992(1) RLW 1
[Citation : RLW 1992(1) Raj. 547]
(Rajasthan High Court)
N.K. JAIN, J.
Navin Graha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd.
Versus
Shyam Prakash Sharma
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 447 of 1991, decided on 14.11.1991
C.P.C., Sec. 115, Order, 7, Rule 11 and Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act,
1965, Sec. 75 & 143 - Notice u/s. 143 of the Act of 1965 given but the
Registrar failed to decide the dispute within two months — Jurisdiction of
court can not be ousted — The lower court can decide the question of
jurisdiction of the court after recording evidence by framing issue on the
question of jurisdiction and will decide it first on merits — Lower court
has not committed any illegality or material irregularity. (Para 9)
Revision petition dismissed

fl-iz- lafgrk & /kkjk 115 & vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 rFkk jktLFkku lgdkjh lkslk;Vh
vf/kfu;e] 1965 & /kkjk 75 vkSj 143 & vf/kfu;e 1965 dh /kkjk 143 ds v/khu
uksfVl fn;k x;k ij jftLVªkj nks ekg esa fookn dk fu.kZ; ugha dj ldk &
U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk dks oafpr ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS & fupyk U;k;ky;
loZizFke U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk ds iz'u ij fookn~;d fojfpr djds ml laca/k
esa lk{; fyfic) djsa vkSj xq.kkxq.k djsa vkSj xq.kkxq.k ij rRlaca/kh viuk fu.kZ;
nsos & fupys U;k;ky; us dksbZ voS/krk vFkok rkfRod vfu;ferrk ugha cjrh gSA
¼in la- 9½
iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk [kkfjtA
Case Law Referred
(1) T. Aivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal (AIR 1977 SC 2421)
(2) Bhagwan Das vs. Goswami Brijesh Kumari & Ors. (1983 Raj. 3)
(3) Association of Radha Swami Dera Baba Baggar Singhji vs. Pratap
Singh & Ors. (1984 WLN (UC) 284)
(4) Smt. Patasi Bai & Ors. vs. Ratanlal (1990 (3) J.T.S.C. 68)
(5) Smt. Kanchan Bai vs. Khetsides & Ors. (S.B. Civil Revision Petition
No. 297/89 (RHC) decided on 05.9.1990)
Advocates Appeared
K.C. Samdariya, Advocate, for Petitioner
JAIN, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of learned
Civil Judge, Jodhpur dated 25.7.1991.
(2) Mr. K.C. Samdariya, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the suit was barred by the provisions of Sec. 75 of the Rajasthan
Cooperative Societies Act, .1965 thus the learned trial court has erred in
dismissing the application dt. 16.7.91 under 0.7 Rule 11 CPC while disposing of
the injunction application and in not dismissing the plaint. He has placed
 Source : Rajasthan Law Weekly

2 1992(1) RLW
reliance on T.Aivan-dandam V.T.V Satyapal (1), Bhagwan Das vs. Goswami
Brijesh Kumari & Ors. (2), Association of Radha Swami Dera Baba Baggar
Singhji vs. Pratap Singh & Ors. (3), Smt. Patasi Bai & Ors. vs. Ratanlal (4) and
Smt. Kanchan Bai vs. Khetsidas & Ors. decided on 05.9.1990. (5)
(3) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case
law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
(4) In T.Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal (supra), their Lordships has
expressed themselves strongly against unrighteous chain litigation leading to
exparte injunction orders which tended to give rise to gamble in litigation into
easy courts. It was also observed that Judge should not succumb to exparte
pressure in unmerited cases as it would tend to devolve the judicial process.
But their Lordships did not intend to enlarge the scope of the provisions of
Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. So as to authorise the Court to decide at that stage all
questions of law, whose determination was necessary in the suit, to conclude
the 'actual' right or claim of one party or the other.
(5) In Bhagwan Das vs. Goswami Brijesh Kumari (supra) it has been
observed that the documents can also be looked into while considering the
averments of the plaint for the purpose of deciding the question that the plaint
discloses a cause of action or not. It has also been observed that the question
relating to the validity or invalidity of the documents cannot be considered at
the stage of deciding an application under O.7, R. 11.
In Association of Radha Swami vs. Pratap Singh (supra) it has been
observed that the court can also look into the documents filed with the plaint.
(6) In Patasi Bai vs. Ratanlal (supra) admittedly no cause of action was
disclosed from the averments of the plaint, therefore, Supreme Court while
deciding case held that the High Court has also ignored its effect.
(7) In Kanchan Bai vs. Khetsidas (supra), the petitioner had claimed to
become full aware. It was alleged that the contract of sale did not prescribe any
period untenable the contract was to be performed. Thus, claimed benefit of
Sec. 54 of the Limitation Act and prayed for a decree for specific performance.
Learned trial court on 23.11.1985 considered the averments and documents
annexed with the plaint and rejected the plaint as time barred under 0.7. Rule
11. On appeal the learned Addl. Distt. Judge set aside the order of the trial
court as it took into consideration the documents which was not proper. The
learned trial court was directed to reconsider its order on the basis of the plaint
only. This order was set aside by the High Court in Misc. Appeal No. 90/86 on
17.1.89 and the appellate court was directed to decide the appeal afresh on
merits in terms of 0.7 Rule 11 C.P.C an the basis of averments of the plaint. The
case was reconsidered by the learned Addl. Distt. Judge and he was of the
view that the learned trial Court could not have taken into consideration any
document filed by the cither side. The learned Addl. Distt. Judge allowed the
appeal and set aside the order of rejection of the plaint. Against the order
Kanchan Bai had come before this court. This Court relying on Bhagwan Das
vs. Goswami Brijesh Kumari (supra) and Association of Radha Swami Dera
Bada Baggar Singhji vs. Pratap Singh (supra) held that the court can also look
into the documents filed with the plaint for the purpose of deciding the
 Source : Rajasthan Law Weekly

1992(1) RLW 3
question that the plaint discloses a cause of action or hot and allowed the
revision and restored the order of trial court rejecting the plaint as time barred.
(8) The scope of revision is limited one and this Court can interfere in the
revisional jurisdiction, if the said Judge had no jurisdiction to make the order it
has made or if the trial court had acted in breach of any provision of law or
committed any error of procedure which was material and may have affected
the ultimate decision, otherwise not, even if this court may not agree with the
conclusion on the question of fact and law.
(9) In the instant case, the plaintiff has alleged that he is one of the
member of the petitioner society and has come to the civil court for redressal of
his grievance with the non-petitioner pertaining to plot no. 330. In reply to the
application under 0.7 Rule 11 C.P.C. it was stated that the plaintiff gave a
notice u/s. 143 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act to the Registrar to
decide the disputed within two months but the Registrar has not decided the
dispute nor replied notice. Therefore, Sec. 75 is not applicable. It was also
stated that preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction can only be decided after
filing written statement. The argument that the Civil Court is not competent to
decide the issue as it is within the jurisdiction and purview of Sec. 75 of the
Act. But the trial court while considering the arguments observed that to oust
the jurisdiction on the basis of material it will be appropriate to decide the
question of jurisdiction of the court after recording evidence by framing issue
on the question of jurisdiction and this question cannot be decided on an
application under 0.39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. In view of this the case law cited by
the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the facts of the present
case. However, the learned trial court will frame preliminary issue regarding
jurisdiction and will decide it first on merits. Thus, the learned lower court
while passing the order dt. 25.7.1991 has not acted in the exercise of its
jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, so as to call for any
interference.
(10). In the result, this revision petition is dismissed.