Law: Cooperative Societies Act, 1925

Section: 70

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: order VII Rlue 11, 9

SUMMARY

This appeal against an order by a Single Judge, which dismissed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for the rejection of a plaint in Suit No. 1802 of 2018. The appellant, a defendant in the suit, contended that the plaint should be rejected due to non-compliance with Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, which mandates a 60-day prior notice to the society before filing a suit.
Background
The suit was initiated by the KDA Officers Cooperative Housing Society Welfare Association and its members, seeking a declaration that a pathway designated as amenity land could not be allocated for individual benefit, specifically against the actions of defendant No. 6. The appellant argued that since no notice was served to the society as required by Section 70, the plaint should be rejected.
Legal Considerations
The learned Single Judge ruled that Section 70 serves as an ouster clause but does not preclude the court's jurisdiction under Section 9 of the CPC. The judge emphasized that for Section 70 to apply, the suit must pertain to matters affecting the business of the society. It was noted that at the time of filing, Section 70 was in effect alongside Section 115 of the Sindh Cooperative Societies Act, 2020.
The court pointed out that while Section 70 requires notice, it does not necessitate rejecting a plaint if other necessary parties are involved in the suit. Furthermore, it highlighted that if an authority is not legally constituted or if its actions are challenged as coram non judice (not properly constituted), civil court jurisdiction remains intact.
Findings
The court found no merit in the appellant's argument for rejecting the plaint. The learned Single Judge's reasoning was upheld, particularly regarding the nature of relief sought—specifically concerning the conversion of amenity land, which requires proper approval from relevant authorities before any allotment can occur. The court concluded that such matters fall within civil jurisdiction and should not be dismissed summarily.
As a result, the appeal was dismissed in limine (without further consideration), along with any associated applications. This decision reinforces judicial authority over cooperative society matters while adhering to procedural requirements outlined in relevant statutes.
In summary, this case illustrates the balance between statutory compliance and judicial oversight in disputes involving cooperative societies and their governance.

ORDER SHEET