JUDGMENT : A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J. The plaintiffs have filed this appeal challenging the judgment decree of the Appellate Court dismissing the appeal filed by them under Section 96 of CPC and confirming the order passed on. I.A. No. 2 by the Trial Court, whereby, the plaint was rejected ‘as barred by law ’. The appellants filed the suit to pass a decree of declaration that the judgment dated 28.08.1990 passed in Appeal No. 451/1988 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal') is incxecutable decree and pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from executing the decree in E.P. No. 391/2002. 2. In order to appreciate the point involved in this appeal, a few relevant facts need to be stated in brief. Appellant-plaintiff (for short ‘the society ’) is a registered Co-operative Society, under Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act’). the defendant - respondent is its Member and in the matter of non-allotment of a site, had raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Act, in No. ADN 386/85-86, before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies at Bijapur, against the appellant. The dispute was rejected as per an award dated 28.04.1988. Assailing the award, appeal No. 451/1988 was filed, under Section 105 of the Act, before the Tribunal. The appeal was allowed on 28.08.1990 and the Society was directed to allot a plot/site on payment of the charges. The judgment/award passed by the Tribunal became final. A certificate was issued to the respondent by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies at Bijapur, on 20.08.2001, under Section 101 (a) of the Act. In pursuance thereof, E.R. No. 391/2002 was filed, in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), at Bijapur, to execute the judgment award dated 28.08.1990 passed in Appeal No. 451/1988 by the Tribunal. Notice of the execution petition having been served on the Society, objections were filed. By an order dated 28.08.2007, II Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bijapur, held that the execution Petition is maintainable and the judgment/award passed by the Tribunal is executable. The Society was directed to allot a plot in favour of the respondent. Assailing the said order, W.P. No. 16498/2007 was filed by the Society and the same was dismissed on 17.02.2010. 3. Dn.), Bijapur, held that the execution Petition is maintainable and the judgment/award passed by the Tribunal is executable. The Society was directed to allot a plot in favour of the respondent. Assailing the said order, W.P. No. 16498/2007 was filed by the Society and the same was dismissed on 17.02.2010. 3. O.S. No. 8/2008 was filed on 09.01.2008 by the Society, to declare that the judgment/award passed by the Tribunal, dated 28.08.1990, in Appeal No. 451/1988, is un-executable decree and pass a decree of permanent injunction and restrain the defendant from executing the decree, in E.P. No. 391/2002, on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bijapur. I.A. No. 2 was filed by the defendant under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC, to reject the plaint Statement objections was filed by the plaintiffs to I.A. No. 2. 4. The Trial Court, by noticing Section 9 of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Tribunal Act') with regard to the finality of the orders passed by the Tribunal and not liable to be called in question in any Court, held that the suit is not maintainable i.e., from the statements made in the plaint and as a consequence, rejected the plaint. An appeal having been filed there against by the plaintiffs, it was held that the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint and the appeal was dismissed. Assailing the said order and the judgment, this second appeal, under Section 100 CPC was filed. 5. Sri D.P Ambekar, Learned Advocate, contended that the Courts below have misconstrued the provision of Order 7, Rule 11 CPC and there is illegal rejection of the plaint, that too, on the ground taken by the defendant, by way of defence. He submitted that the plaint having disclosed a clear cause of action to the suit and the plaintiffs having right to approach a Civil Court for relief and the suit having been instituted within the prescribed period, on the basis of the cause of action which arose to the plaintiffs, pursuant to the order passed on 28.08.2007 in E.P. No. 391/2002, the impugned order and the judgment are illegal. Learned Counsel contended that the dispute being only with regard to executability of the judgment/award passed by the Tribunal, the Courts below having committed error and illegality in making reference to Section 9 of the Tribunal Act and hence, the impugned judgment and the order have given raise to substantial questions of law, required to be decided by this Court, in exercise of the power under Section 100 CPC. 6. Having heard the Learned Advocate and perused the record of the case, the point for consideration is, whether the rejection of the plaint, as barred by law, is justified? 7. Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, to the extent it is relevant, reads thus : “11. Rejection of plaint - The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:- (a) xxxxx (b) xxxxx (c) xxxxx (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; xxxxxx 8. Section 9 of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Act, 1976 being relevant, reads thus: “9. Finality of the orders of the Tribunal - Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, but subject to the provisions of Sections 8 and 8-A, every decision of the Tribunal shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court.” 9. An application for rejection of the plaint can be filed, if the averments made in the plaint is taken to be correct as a whole, on their face value show the suit to be barred by any law. For deciding the issue with regard to rejection of plaint by applying the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, only the averments made in the plaint are relevant and not the defence of the defendant (See Yashavant v. Senior Manager, A.B.N. Amro Bank N.V., New Delhi, ILR 2013 KAR 3903. Defendant can seek rejection of the plaint by recourse to Order 7, Rule 11 CPC at any time. In Charanlal Sahu v. Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy, (1978) 2 SCC 500 Apex Court has held, that it is obligatory on the part of the Court to reject a petition outright and not to waste any more time upon a plaint or a petition, if the provision of law bar or shown to bar the proceedings. In Charanlal Sahu v. Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy, (1978) 2 SCC 500 Apex Court has held, that it is obligatory on the part of the Court to reject a petition outright and not to waste any more time upon a plaint or a petition, if the provision of law bar or shown to bar the proceedings. In Narasamma V.K v. Ramprasad, ILR 2012 KAR 4261 it has been held that it is an independent remedy made available to the defendant to challenge the maintainability of the suit itself, irrespective of his right to contest the suit on merit. 10. The plaintiff-appellant herein, is a Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and the defendant - respondent is its Member. The dispute between the Society and its Member can be the subject matter of adjudication under Section 70 of the Act. The Registrar can decide the dispute in exercise of the power under Section 71 of the Act. An award passed by the Registrar can be assailed by the aggrieved person, before the Tribunal, by way of an appeal, under Section 105 of the Act. An award passed by the Registrar or the Tribunal, as the case may be, can be executed, under Section 101 of the Act, which reads as follows: “101. Execution of orders, etc.- [(1)] Every order made by the Registrar under sub-section [(1)] of section 69 or under Section 99, every decision or award made under section 71. An award passed by the Registrar or the Tribunal, as the case may be, can be executed, under Section 101 of the Act, which reads as follows: “101. Execution of orders, etc.- [(1)] Every order made by the Registrar under sub-section [(1)] of section 69 or under Section 99, every decision or award made under section 71. every order made by the Liquidator under Section 74 and every order made by the Tribunal under Sections 105 and 107, and every order made under Section 106 or 108 shall subject to any other provision of this Act be binding on the person or co-operative society against whom the order, decision or award has been obtained or passed and shall, if not carried out,- (a) on a certificate signed by the Registrar, or any person authorised by him in this behalf, be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court and shall be executed in the same manner as a decree of such court: or (b) be executed according to the law and under the rules for the time being in force for the recovery of arrears as land revenue: Provided that an application for the recovery in such manner of any sum shall be made,- (i) to the Deputy Commissioner and shall be accompanied by a certificate signed by the Registrar or by any person authorised by him in this behalf; (ii) within twelve years from the date fixed, in the order, decision or award, and if no such date is fixed, from the date of the order, decision or award, as the case may be; or (c) be executed by the Registrar or any other person subordinate to him empowered by the Registrar in this behalf, by the attachment and sale or sale without attachment of any property of the person or a co-operative society against whom the order, decision or award has been obtained or passed. [(2) (a) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, every question relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of an order, decision or award referred to in sub-section (1) or relating to the confirmation or setting aside of a sale held in an execution of such order, decision or award in pursuance of Clause (c) of sub-section (1), or relating to any claim or objection to an attachment of any property made under Section 103 or in execution in pursuance of the said Clause (c), shall be determined, by an order of the Registrar or any other person subordinate to him, empowered by the Registrar under the said Clause (c) (hereinafter in this section referred to as “authorised person”) before whom such question arises. (b) (i) Where any claim is preferred against or any objection is made to the attachment of any property made under Section 103 or in execution in pursuance of clause (c) of sub-section (1), on the ground that the said property is not liable to such attachment, the Registrar or the authorised person shall proceed to investigate the claim or objection: Provided that where the Registrar or the authorised person considers that the claim or objection was designedly or unnecessarily delayed he shall make an order refusing such investigation. (ii) Where, upon the said investigation, the Registrar or the authorised person satisfied that for the reason stated in the claim or objection such property was not, at the date of the attachment, in the possession of the person or co-operative society against whom the order, decision or award has been obtained or passed (hereinafter in this section referred to as the ‘judgment-debtor’) or of some person in trust for the judgment-debtor or in the occupancy of a tenant or other person paying rent to the judgment-debtor or that, being in the possession of the judgment-debtor at the said date, it was so in his possession, not in his own account or as his own property, but on account of or in trust for some other person, or partly on his own account and partly on account of some other person, the Registrar or the authorised person shall make an order releasing the property, wholly or to such extent as he thinks fit, from attachment. (iii) Where the Registrar or the authorised person is satisfied that the property was on the said date, in the possession of the judgment-debtor as his own property and not on account of any other person, or was in the occupancy of a tenant or other person paying rent to him, the Registrar or the authorised person shall disallow the claim; (iv) Where a claim or an objection is preferred, the party against whom an order is made may within a period of one year from the date of such order, institute a suit in a Civil Court to establish the right which he claims to the property in dispute; but, subject to the result of such suit, if any, the order of the Registrar or the authorised person shall be conclusive.] (Underlining by me) 11. In the present case, the respondent being the member of the appellant had raised the dispute under Section 70 of the Act, which was dismissed on 28.04.1988 by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the said award was assailed in Appeal No. 451/1988 before the Tribunal. The appeal was allowed and an award was passed against the Society to allot the site and extend the benefits, which the Member of the Society is entitled as per by law on payment of necessary charges. The judgment/award Passed by Tribunal having not been challenged, became final. The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies having been inferred with the power of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, in relation to Section 101 of the Act, as per the Notification of Government of Karnataka bearing No. DPC-73/CEA-74 dated 13.03.1974, issued a certificate, under Section 101 of the Act which enabled the decree holder to execute the decree in the Civil Court. In pursuance thereof, E.P.No.391/2002 was filed and an order dated 28.08.2007 was passed by the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Bijapur, overruling the objections of the judgment debtor/Society Challenge put forth to the said order, in W.P. No. 16498/2007 was given up, by allowing the said writ petition to be dismissed on 17.02.2010, for non-prosecution. 12. In pursuance thereof, E.P.No.391/2002 was filed and an order dated 28.08.2007 was passed by the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Bijapur, overruling the objections of the judgment debtor/Society Challenge put forth to the said order, in W.P. No. 16498/2007 was given up, by allowing the said writ petition to be dismissed on 17.02.2010, for non-prosecution. 12. The decision of the Apex Court, in Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh And Another, AIR 1969 SC 78 makes it clear, that whenever a special statute bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court by an express provision or by implication and makes decision of such authority not liable to be questioned in any Civil Court, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would be excluded. If there is any express bar created in the special statute or if the special statute creates a special Tribunal and makes the decision final and not liable to be questioned in any Civil Court, then the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would stand barred. 13. Section 9 of the Tribunal Act, extracted supra, makes it clear, that the order passed by the Tribunal, (subject to the provisions of Sections 8 and 8A) shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court. By the said provision, the Legislature has given finality to the orders passed by the Tribunal, and has barred the Courts from examining the judgment/award. Thus, there is express bar of jurisdiction by the statute. 14. In view of the aforementioned facts, which are clearly discernable from the averments made in the plaint and the undisputed ; cord and also the proceedings between the parties, Section 9 of the tribunal Act being attracted, the Trial Judge has rightly allowed I.A. No. 2 filed by the defendant and held that the suit is barred under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) CPC and as a consequence, rejected the plaint. 15. In view of the finality of the order dated 28.08.2007 : passed by the execution Court and on account of the dismissal of V.P. No. 16948/2007, separate suit filed is barred by law. Section 47 CPC bars determination of any question relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree by way of a separate suit. Such questions shall be determined by the executing Court. 16. Section 47 CPC bars determination of any question relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree by way of a separate suit. Such questions shall be determined by the executing Court. 16. Having regard to the above undisputed factual matrix, 'the Courts below have not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order and the judgment respectively and the same have not given raise to any substantial question of law for consideration, in exercise of the power under Section 100 CPC. The rights of the parties having been decided by the Tribunal and its Judgment/Award having attained finality, the order and the Judgment passed by Courts below, impugned in this appeal, do not directly or substantially affect the right of the appellants. Hence, no substantial question of law is required to be determined in this appeal. The second appeal, sans substantial question of law, is not maintainable. Hence, the appeal is rejected. Regular Second Appeal is Rejected.