JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Defendant, a Cooperative House Building Society, has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by filing this revision petition to impugn order dated 29.7.2011, Annexure P/7 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh thereby dismissing application Annexure P/5 moved by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) for dismissal of the suit in view of bar of jurisdiction of civil court by the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). 2. Respondent – plaintiff Satwant Kaur has filed the suit vide plaint Annexure P/4 seeking relief as under:- “It is, therefore, prayed for suit of the plaintiff may be declared as under:- i. That defendant be directed to produce entire records pertaining to construction/payments received, payments made to the members for the construction of their allotted units. ii. That suit for recovery of Rs 809384/- may be decreed on the facts and circumstances stated above against the defendant society and the office bearers of the society on the facts and circumstances explained above, which will be proved through evidence. iii. Any other relief though not prayed and suitable circumstances may be granted to the plaintiff and the suit be decreed with costs, in the interest of justice.” 3. Defendant moved application Annexure P/5 for dismissal of the suit alleging that jurisdiction of civil court to try the suit is barred by the Act. Respondent-plaintiff by filing reply Annexure P/6 resisted the application and pleaded that the suit is not covered by the Act and jurisdiction of civil court is not barred. 4. Learned trial court vide impugned order Annexure P/7 has dismissed application Annexure P/5 moved by the defendant. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has filed this revision petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 6. At the outset counsel for the respondent-plaintiff gave up the claim of plaintiff for recovery of Rs.8,09,384/- contained in clause (ii) of the prayer in the plaint as reproduced hereinbefore. The suit thus remains for directing the defendant to only produce the entire records pertaining to construction/payments received, payments made to the members for the construction of their allotted units. 7. The suit thus remains for directing the defendant to only produce the entire records pertaining to construction/payments received, payments made to the members for the construction of their allotted units. 7. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the suit pertains to business of the society and therefore, in view of section 55 of the Act, the dispute is required to be referred to Registrar, Cooperative Societies as Arbitrator for decision and no court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Reference was also made to section 82 of the Act which also bars jurisdiction of civil court inter alia in respect of any dispute required under section 55 of the Act to be referred to the Registrar. Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Mohinder Singh versus Ludhiana Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., 1991(2) Recent Revenue Reports 425. 8. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-plaintiff contended that now the suit would pertain to only production of record and accounts of the defendant-society and therefore, jurisdiction of civil court to try the suit for the said relief is not barred by sections 55 and 82 of the Act. 9. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. 10. The plaintiff after giving up her claim for recovery of the amount, seeks only production of entire records of the defendant-society pertaining to construction/payments received and payments made to the members for the construction of their allotted units. The plaintiff does not even seek rendition of accounts of the defendant. For mere production of the records of the defendant, the dispute is not liable to be referred to Registrar under section 55 of the Act as nothing is required to be adjudicated upon or decided. Consequently, jurisdiction of civil court to try the suit for the said relief is not barred by sections 55 and 82 of the Act. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------