JUDGMENT:- The plaintiffs namely Sweet Home Co-operative Society has filed these two suits for recovery of possession of flats more particularly described in the respective plaint from the respective defendant. Each of the defendant had objected to the jurisdiction of this Court and accordingly by order dated 3rd February, 2009 issue as regards jurisdiction was framed in Suit No.2355 of 2003. Perusal of the order dated 3rd February, 2009 passed in Motion No.443 of 2007 with Motion No.741 of 2007 in Suit No.2354 of 2003 would go to show that issue as regards jurisdiction was also intended to be framed in Suit No.2354 of 2003. It is noticed that no formal issue has been framed in Suit No.2354 of 2003. Hence, by consent of both the sides; issue as regards jurisdiction in Suit No.2354 of 2003 was engrossed on 26th October. 2010 and arguments on both the sides on the question of jurisdiction in both the suits i.e. Suit No. 2354 of 2003 and Suit No. 2355 of 2003 were heard. 2. Facts in these two suits are similar to each other except flat number in regard to which respective suit is filed. It would be convenient to narrate the facts in Suit No. 2354 of 2003 first. The promoter of the present plaintiffs made an application to MHADA and plot no.24 more particularly described in para 3 of the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the said property) was allotted to construct a building on the said plot and to accommodate members of the Sweet Home Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (proposed). Thereafter, the present plaintiffs were registered as a cooperative society and the co-operative society took lead in construction of the building at site on the plot described in paragraph 3 of the plaint. The plaintiffs allotted flat no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as Suit flat) to the defendant in his capacity as a member of the plaintiffs' Society. The defendant was required to pay to plaintiffs the cost of the flat and reading of the plaint would go to show that by holding general body meeting of the plaintiffs, the cost of the flat was decided from time to time. The defendant had paid part payments and it was noticed by the plaintiff that the defendant is in arrears of Rs.55,625/- as of July. 2000. The defendant had paid part payments and it was noticed by the plaintiff that the defendant is in arrears of Rs.55,625/- as of July. 2000. In terms of the resolution passed in the general body meeting, it was decided to cancel the allotment if the cost of the flat is not paid. The plaintiffs by notice dated 13th September. 2001 called upon defendant to pay to plaintiff Rs.13.56.669/- and interest as set out in the said notice. According to plaintiffs, the defendant did not comply with the said demand notice and that is why the allotment of the said flat was cancelled. According to plaintiffs the formal possession of the flat was not handed over to the defendant on account of cancellation of the allotment. According to plaintiffs, the office bearer of the plaintiffs society noted that the defendant has taken forcible and illegal possession of the suit flat on 11th October. 2002 and that is how the plaintiffs came to the conclusion that the defendant is illegally occupying the suit flat w .e. f. 11th October. 2002. Efforts were made by the plaintiffs to move the police machinery to get possession of the suit flat. However, the said efforts failed. Hence, plaintiffs instituted the present suit for recovery of possession of the suit flat being suit under Section 6 of the Specific Reliefs Act. Relevant averments as regards institution of the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Reliefs Act are found In paragraph 16 in the plaint. As mentioned earlier, the defendant raised the objection as regards jurisdiction and consequently issue as regards jurisdiction came to be framed in the present suit on 26th October. 20 10 which is as follows: "Whether the defendant proves that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit?” 3. So far as Suit No.2355 of 2003 is concerned, the suit flat is Flat No.25 on the 13th/ 14th Floor more particularly described in paragraph 1 of the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the suit flat). The defendant was called upon to pay Rs.18,20,261/- alongwith interest more particularly set out in the said notice dated 13th September, 2001. The defendant did not pay the amount and that is how the allotment came to be cancelled as had happened in Suit No.2354 of 2003. The defendant was called upon to pay Rs.18,20,261/- alongwith interest more particularly set out in the said notice dated 13th September, 2001. The defendant did not pay the amount and that is how the allotment came to be cancelled as had happened in Suit No.2354 of 2003. It has been the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant was not put in possession of the suit flat on account of cancellation of allotment. 4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that defendant on 11th October. 2002 took forcible and illegal possession of suit flat and the said fact was noticed by the Managing Committee member of the plaintiffs, Mr. R. R. Badlani. The police machinery was moved for the purposes of getting the possession restored. However, plaintiffs were unsuccessful. The present suit came to be filed by the plaintiffs to get back the possession of the suit flat which came to be occupied by the defendant in an illegal manner. The defendant had objected to the jurisdiction of this Court and that is how issue as regards jurisdiction of the Court was framed by order dated 3rd February. 2010 which is as follows: "Whether the defendant proves that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present Suit ?" 5. It must be mentioned that the parties were permitted to lead evidence and accordingly defendant in each suit stepped into witness box and gave evidence on the issue framed as aforesaid. No other witness was examined on behalf of the defendant. No witness was examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. Certain documents have been relied upon by the respective defendant. 6. Since the point involved in both the suits was common, it was agreed by and between the learned Counsel that the common argument would be advanced. 7. Learned Counsel Mr. Deogirikar appearing on behalf of the defendants took me through the plaint and submitted that plaintiffs admitted that the defendants were enrolled as member of the plaintiffs society and the respective flat was allotted to the respective defendant. He submitted that the plaintiff has not cancelled the membership of the defendants as on the date of institution of the suit and therefore, on the date of institution of the suit plaintiffs and each of the defendant were governed by the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. He submitted that the plaintiff has not cancelled the membership of the defendants as on the date of institution of the suit and therefore, on the date of institution of the suit plaintiffs and each of the defendant were governed by the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) as the defendants happen to be the member of the plaintiffs society. Learned Counsel Mr. Deogirikar submitted that keeping in view the status of the plaintiffs as a Co-operative Society and the defendants as member of the said society, the dispute raised by the plaintiffs in the present suits is a dispute between the co-operative society and its member. He also took me through the text of the plaint and pointed out that the plot on which present building is standing was allotted to the promoter of the co-operative society and eventually the said plot carne to be allotted for the benefit of the cooperative society and the co-operative society had taken up the task of construction of the building for the benefit of the members and the co-operative society was formed by the respective members of the society. Learned Counsel Mr. Deogirikar, therefore, submitted that if the activities canied out by the plaintiffs society are considered qua suit flats as well as qua the concerned defendants the dispute raised by the plaintiffs society in the present suit would be governed by the term "management or business of the society" appearing in Section 91 of the said Act. Learned Counsel Mr. Deogirikar had therefore submitted that the dispute raised by the plaintiffs in terms of these two suits falls fairly and squarely within the parameters of Section 91 of the said Act and hence the Co-operative Court alone will have jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suits and no other Court shall have jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suits. Learned Counsel Mr. Deogirikar had submitted that on account of the provisions of Section 163 of the said Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly barred and that is how this Court shall lave no jurisdiction to try and entertain the resent suits. Learned Counsel Mr. Deogirikar had submitted that on account of the provisions of Section 163 of the said Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly barred and that is how this Court shall lave no jurisdiction to try and entertain the resent suits. He had submitted that the mandate of Section 91 of the said Act should be accepted by this Court once the Court comes to the conclusion that dispute raised in the present suits is covered by parameters of Section 91 of the said Act. Learned Counsel Mr. Deogirikar had taken me through the evidence furnished by each of the defendant and had ultimately submitted that this Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suits. 8. It was also argued by learned Counsel Mr. Deogirikar that nature of the suit by itself will not make any difference once the Court comes to the conclusion that the present suit is between a co-operative society and a member concerning management of the business of the Society. Learned Counsel Mr. Deogirikar had reiterated the contention that this Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suits. 9. Considering the averments in the plaint, it is clear that each of the defendant happens to be the member of the plaintiffs society. If one peruses the averments in the plaint, it is clear that the membership of each of the defendant is not cancelled. Learned Counsel Mr. Joshi had submitted that a perusal of the plaint would go to show that though initially the suit flat was allotted to each of the defendant respectively, the respective flat was not put in possession of the respective defendant and on account of cancellation of the allotment. said defendant had no right to take possession of respective flat. Learned Counsel Mr. Joshi had submitted that in the plaint, appropriate averments are set out to state as to how each of the defendant took forcible possession of the suit flat on 11th October, 2002. According to him, respective plaint clearly indicates that each defendant took possession of the suit flat illegally and the said act of the defendant was not approved by the plaintiffs and that is how the plaintiffs proceeded to move the police machinery and ultimately have come to this Court for recovery of possession of the suit flat. Learned Counsel Mr. According to him, respective plaint clearly indicates that each defendant took possession of the suit flat illegally and the said act of the defendant was not approved by the plaintiffs and that is how the plaintiffs proceeded to move the police machinery and ultimately have come to this Court for recovery of possession of the suit flat. Learned Counsel Mr. Joshi had also submitted that perusal of the plaint would clearly go to show that the suit is filed on limited ground namely each of the defendant taking forcible possession of the respective flat and the plaintiffs trying to have the said possession restored in accordance with the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Specific Reliefs Act. Learned Counsel Mr. Joshi had. therefore submitted that this Court will have to consider the nature of the suit and according to him the Civil Court alone will have jurisdiction to try and entertain both the suits which are filed on the basis of Section 6( 1) of the Specific Reliefs Act. He had submitted that since the suit is filed under Section 6 of the Specific Reliefs Act, the provisions of Section 91 and Section 163 of the said Act would not be attracted to the facts of these two cases and the Civil Court alone shall have jurisdiction. Learned Counsel Mr. Joshi had submitted that provisions as regards bar of jurisdiction of this Court appearing in Section 163 of the said Act will not be attracted to the facts stated in the present plaint as the suits are filed under the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Specific Reliefs Act i.e. suit for restoration of possession of the respective suit flat. 10. Learned Counsel Mr. Joshi relied upon the judgment of division bench of this Court in the case of Shiavax C. Cambata Vs. Sunderdas Ebji reported in 1950 BLR 381. Learned Counsel Mr. Joshi took me through the text of the judgment and had pointed out the view of the division bench as regards the suits filed under Section 6 of the said Act and the ultimate observations and the decision given by the learned division bench. Learned Counsel Mr. Sunderdas Ebji reported in 1950 BLR 381. Learned Counsel Mr. Joshi took me through the text of the judgment and had pointed out the view of the division bench as regards the suits filed under Section 6 of the said Act and the ultimate observations and the decision given by the learned division bench. Learned Counsel Mr. Joshi had submitted that at the time when this judgment was delivered, provisions of Section 9 of Specific Relief Act (then prevailing) permitted a party to institute a suit for recovery of possession as is presently permitted under Section 6 of the Specific Reliefs Act. He had submitted that the judgment delivered by learned division bench would equally be applicable to the suits, which are now filed under Section 6 of the Specific Reliefs Act. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi had drawn my attention to the facts in the case of Shivax C. Cambata Vs. Sunderdas Ebji and had pointed out that the appellant was the tenant of the respondent and the appellant had approached the High Court in its original side by stating that the respondent who was defendant in original suit dispossessed the appellant-plaintiff from the suit premises and that the appellant-plaintiff should be put in possession of the said premises by utilizing the provisions of Section 9 of the Specific Reliefs Act which was then prevailing. He pointed out that the trial Court came to the conclusion that on account of provisions of Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, the High Court in its original side did not have jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit filed under the Specific Reliefs Act for restoration of possession under Section 9 of Specific Relief Act then prevailing. He pointed out that division bench held that despite Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act the Civil Court shall have jurisdiction and that was done looking to the nature of the suit. 11. Learned Counsel Mr. Joshi had submitted that the principles laid down by the learned division bench should be equally applicable to the facts of the present case, despite the provisions of Section 91 and 163 of the said Act. 11. Learned Counsel Mr. Joshi had submitted that the principles laid down by the learned division bench should be equally applicable to the facts of the present case, despite the provisions of Section 91 and 163 of the said Act. He submitted that the reasons given by the learned division bench to hold that the Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to try and entertain a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Reliefs Act despite establishment of special Courts for parties who are governed by specific relationship should be accepted. He, therefore, submitted that the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the defendant be rejected and the issue be answered in favour of the plaintiffs. 12. Learned Counsel Mr. Joshi had relied upon the judgment in the case of Dattatraya Krishna Jangam Vs. Jairam Ganesh Gore, AIR 1965 Bombay 177 (v 52 C 36). Learned Counsel Mr. Joshi had drawn my attention to paragraph 11 of the said judgment and had submitted that the learned full bench of this Court agreed with the view taken by the learned division bench in the case of Shiavax C. Cambata Vs. Sunderdas Ebji as regards jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try and entertain the suit under the Specific Reliefs Act. He had, therefore, submitted that this Court should apply the principles laid down in the case of Shiavax C. Cambata Vs. Sunderdas Ebji to the facts of this case and decide the issue. 13. I have considered the rival submissions. A plain reading of Section 91 and Section 163 of the said Act gives impression that all kinds of suits between the co-operative society and a member would lie to the Cooperative Court if the nature of the dispute falls in anyone of the categories mentioned in Section 91 of the said Act. Provisions of Section 163, no doubt, create bar of the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. However, I am inclined to observe that the said bar would not be applicable to suits filed between a co-operative society and a member being a suit under Section 6(1) of the Specific Reliefs Act. I am inclined to observe that the principles laid down by the learned division bench in the case of Shiavax C. Cambata Vs. Sunderdas Ebji will have to be applied to a dispute between the co-operative society and each of the defendant who is a member of the plaintiffs. I am inclined to observe that the principles laid down by the learned division bench in the case of Shiavax C. Cambata Vs. Sunderdas Ebji will have to be applied to a dispute between the co-operative society and each of the defendant who is a member of the plaintiffs. If the suit is for recovery of possession where the plaintiffs allege that the possession of the property in question was taken in high handed manner and the plaintiffs were dispossessed and if the suit is filed for recovery of possession irrespective of the question of title as well as irrespective of the manner in which the parties to the suits related to each other namely landlord and tenant, co-operative society and its members, the Civil Court will have jurisdiction to decide such a suit for restoration of possession filed under Section 6 of said Act. It is true that in the present suit plaintiffs and each of the defendant is related to each other as a co-operative society and a member, however, that has nothing to do with the subject matter of the suit. The subject matter of the suit is recovery of possession from the respective defendant on the ground that each of the defendant had taken forcible possession of the respective suit flat and the plaintiffs want restoration of the said possession. The plaintiffs want to have the said restoration of possession by having the benefit of provisions of Section 6(1) of the Specific Reliefs Act. 14. If a suit instituted by a tenant for recovery of possession from the landlord on the ground that the said tenant was dispossessed by the landlord illegally is to be entertained by this Court in its original civil jurisdiction, there is no reason to create distinction between such a suit and suit filed by a co-operative society against its members for restoration of possession under the provisions of Specific Relief Act. The judgment delivered by the learned division bench clearly indicates as to how status of parties is immaterial in a suit filed for restoration of the possession. 15. I am inclined to accept the arguments advanced by learned Counsel Mr. Joshi. I am of the view that the principles laid down in the case of Shiavax C. Cambata Vs. The judgment delivered by the learned division bench clearly indicates as to how status of parties is immaterial in a suit filed for restoration of the possession. 15. I am inclined to accept the arguments advanced by learned Counsel Mr. Joshi. I am of the view that the principles laid down in the case of Shiavax C. Cambata Vs. Sunderdas Ebji as regards institution of suits in the Civil Court for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Reliefs Act should equally be applied to a suit filed by a co-operative society against its member. In view of this, two suits filed by the plaintiffs i.e. the co-operative society are maintainable in this Court being the suits for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Reliefs Act and as such this Court shall have jurisdiction to try and entertain the suits. 16. I must mention that I had gone through the evidence furnished by each of the defendant in the present suits. No help could be obtained from the evidence furnished by the respective defendant for the purposes of deciding the aforesaid issue. 17. In the circumstances mentioned aforesaid, I am inclined to hold that each of the defendant has failed to show that this Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suits. Accordingly, issue in each suit is answered in the negative. Consequently, this Court will have jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suits. In view of the aforesaid findings, the Court shall now proceed to decide these two suits on merits. Ordered accordingly.