JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents despite service. 2. The decree holder-Pali Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. against the judgment debtor Jitendra Kumar S/o Late Shri Mohan Dass Ji has approached this Court by way of present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 21.1.2011 passed by the learned trial Court r :jecting the application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. filed by the petitioner-Pali Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. for rejecting of the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 Pushpa Devi W/o Late Shri Mohan Dass Ji and mother of judgment debtor-)itendra Kumar claiming that since mortgaged suit property, a residential house, has been given to her by way of Will by Late Shri Mohan Dass Ji, therefore, the same cannot be put to auction in execution of the decree in favour of petitioner-Bank against the amount borrowed by the respondent No. 2-Jitendra Kumar. 3. The petitioner-Bank earlier also approached this Court by way of Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1126/2010 (Pali Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. &Anr. v. Sint. Pushpa Devi & Anr.), which came to be disposed of by the coordinate bench of this Court on 10.11.2010 directing the learned trial Court to decide the pending application of the petitioner Bank under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. expeditiously. The said application was, therefore, considered and decided by the learned trial Court by the impugned order dated 21.1.2011. However, the learned trial Court found that there is no bar of jurisdiction of civil Court in the facts of the present case where a third party is claiming his/her right on the property attached by the Court for execution of the decree and, therefore, the civil Court has jurisdiction to deal with such suits and the jurisdiction being not barred, the application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. came to be rejected by the learned trial Court holding that separate issue may be framed for this, which after leading evidence may be decided by the Court. 4. Being aggrieved by the said dismissal order dated 21.1.2011, the decree holder Bank approached this Court. 5. While issuing notice to the respondents, the coordinate bench stayed further proceedings of execution case, namely Civil Misc. Case No. 159 of 2010 pending in the Court of Civil judge (Jr. Div.), Pali. 6. 4. Being aggrieved by the said dismissal order dated 21.1.2011, the decree holder Bank approached this Court. 5. While issuing notice to the respondents, the coordinate bench stayed further proceedings of execution case, namely Civil Misc. Case No. 159 of 2010 pending in the Court of Civil judge (Jr. Div.), Pali. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner Bank, Mr. Girish Sankhla relying upon the following judgments urged that in view of clear provision of Section 117 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001, the learned Court below was not justified in rejecting the application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. and the suit filed by respondent No. 1 Pushpa Devi deserved to be dismissed as barred by law and if she had any grievance in the matter relating the auction of the suit property in question, she could raise the objections even before the Sale/Recovery Officer under Rule 94(m) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 2003 framed under the aforesaid Act of 2001 and upon payment of dues of the Bank, the property in question could be discharged from the charge of the Bank even by the Recovery Officer under the said Rules. 7. The cases laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. (i) Bhadur Singh v. The District Judge, Rainpur & Ors., AIR 1975 Allahabad 12 (ii) Tilam Sangh Rajasthan Sriganganagar & Anr. v. Kamal Prasad Sharma, 1998 RLW(1) Raj. 346 . (iii) Rameshwar Lal v. Managing Director, Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Bikaner Ors., 2007(2) DNJ (Raj.) 701 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Bank, this Court is of the opinion that the present.writ petition filed by the petitioner Bank has no force and the same deserve to be dismissed. 9. This Court in Anant Sri Sukhrainji Trust Ramdham v. Shri Balaaji Grah Nirinwi Sahkari Sainiti Ltd. & Ors., 2011(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1382 relying upon its previous decision in Harsh Vardhan Kejriwal v. Madhav Nagar Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. & Ors., 2007(4) RLW 3473 , has held that the determination of dispute rdlating to civil rights like title, possession dispute as to agreement to sale etc. do not fall within the four corners of the disputes which are envisaged to be decided by the authorities created under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 and bar of jurisdiction of the civil Court under Section 117 of Act of 2001 does not apply in such circumstances. In the said case of Anant Sri Sukhramji Trust (supra) the defendant Trust had challenged the transaction of sale by its member-Harivallabh in his individual to the defendant Trust, which was a cooperative society and the question as to whether the said defendant Harivallabh had a right to sell the said land was under challenge and the Court held that bar of jurisdiction envisaged under Section 117 of the Act would not apply in such cases. 10. It is clear from the provisions of Section 117 of the Act of 2001, which is reproduced below for ready reference, that the matter pertaining to dispute arising under the provisions of said-Act between the Cooperative society and its members or intra members dispute alone are envisaged to be decided by the Tribunal created under the said Act and the said provision do not take away the jurisdiction of the civil Court to decide the civil disputes and rights of the parties, which may even touch the borrowing of the sum from the cooperative society. 11. Section 117 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act reads as under: 117. Bar of jurisdiction of Courts.-Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no civil or revenue Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of- (a) the registration of a co-operative society or of an amendment of the bye-laws; (b) the removal of a committee; and (c) any matter concerning the winding up and the dissolution of a co-operative society or concerning the business of a society under liquidation. (2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no decision or award made under this Act shall be questioned in any Court on any ground whatsoever." 12. (2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no decision or award made under this Act shall be questioned in any Court on any ground whatsoever." 12. The dispute raised in the present case before this Court by respondent No. 1 Pushpa Devi that since the property in question has been bequeathed to her by her late husband, therefore, the same cannot be put to auction by the Sale/Recovery Officer of the petitioner Bank under the provisions of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 and such civil dispute can only be properly decided by the competent civil Court and not by the Tribunal created under the provisions of the Act, 2001. 13. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner Bank are clearly distinguishable on the facts of the present case. 14. In Tilam Sangh Rajasthan Sriganganagar & Anr. v. Kamal Prasad Sharma (supra) the question was as to whether the disciplinary action taken against the employee under the provisions of industrial Employees (Standing Orders) 1949 falls within the phrase, "touching upon the management of the society" and this Court held that the jurisdiction of the civil Court in such cases will be barred as the same would fall for determination by the Tribunal created under the said Act. 15. Similarly, the award made under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1966 was held to be falling out of the scope of Arbitration Act, 1940 in Bhadur Singh v. District judge, Rainpur (supra). 16. In Rameshwar Lal v. Managing Director, Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Bikaner Ors , (supra) the coordinate bench of this Court was concerned with the application filed by the petitioner for permanent injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. and appeal against which was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court and upon challenge being led before this Court by way of writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the coordinate bench of this Court held that since specific remedy has been provided under the Act of 2001, and the decree passed tinder Section 118 is passed under special law, the same is required to be executed as a decree passed by a civil Court and thus, the writ petition was found to be devoid of merit and was dismissed. 17. 17. Thus, all the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner Bank are of no assistance to the petitioner, bank in the present case, whereas, the judgment of this Court in the case of Anant Sri Sukhramji Trust Ramdham (supra) & Harsh Vardhan Kejriwal (supra) has clearly laid down that the dispute relating to civil rights of the respective parties can be determined by the civil Court and bar of jurisdiction under Section 117 of the Act of 2001 does not apply in such cases. 18. This Courts finds that the dispute in the present case is of the nature which does not fall within the exclusive domain of the Tribunal constituted under the Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 and, therefore, the learned trial Court was justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner Bank under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. and in holding that the same would be decided after framing an issue in the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 Pushpa Devi. 19. This Court therefore, is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed No costs.Petition Dismissed. *******