JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist. Though notices were issued to the sole opposite party by registered post fixing 4 July 2019 and the office has reported that the notice was delivered, however, no one has appeared on behalf of the sole opposite party and neither any counter affidavit has been filed. 2. The defendant-revisionist is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, [Act of 1965]. A suit bearing Original Suit No.779 of 2014 was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party seeking relief, inter alia, of a decree of mandatory injunction restraining the defendant-revisionist from interfering in his possession over the property in dispute. In the aforesaid suit, issue nos.7, 8 and 9 were framed, which were decided against the defendant-revisionist by means of the order dated 7 March 2019 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Judge, Small Causes Court, Moradabad, which order is under challenge in this revision. The issue nos.7, 8 and 9 were respectively to the following effect : “(a) whether the plaintiff's suit is not maintainable under the provisions of Section 70 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965?; (b) whether the suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure? ; and (c) whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC?” 3. The court below considered the provisions of Section 70 of the Act of 1965 and held that since the provisions of Section 70 do not bar a suit for injunction, the suit aforesaid would be maintainable and the aforesaid issues were answered in favour of the plaintiff-opposite party and against the defendant-revisionist. 4. In the plaint, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit, it is admitted by the plaintiff-opposite party that he is a member of the Co-operative Society (defendant-revisionist) which had allotted the plaintiff-opposite party Plot No.60 in the Mukarrabpur Ehatmali Scheme of the revisionist. 4. In the plaint, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit, it is admitted by the plaintiff-opposite party that he is a member of the Co-operative Society (defendant-revisionist) which had allotted the plaintiff-opposite party Plot No.60 in the Mukarrabpur Ehatmali Scheme of the revisionist. It was alleged in the plaint that some unknown people were approaching the plaintiff on behalf of the respondent for purpose of illegally taking possession of the suit property and, accordingly, the suit was filed with the following reliefs:- “A. That a permanent injunction to this effect may please be issued against the defendant in favour of the plaintiff that the defendant either by himself or through his agent shall not encroach on or interfere with the rights of the plaintiff over plot no. 60, of which he is owner by way of a perpetual lease, and the details of which are shown in the Appendix “Ka”. B. That through a mandatory permanent injunction in the nature of a decree, the defendant may please be directed that the lease deed of the additional land, due to the land in dispute being a corner land, which measures 261.19 square metre, be executed in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the amount as per the rules. C. That costs may please be awarded to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant. D. That any other relief, which the court deems fit, may please be awarded to the plaintiff as against the defendant.” (English translation by Court) 5. On objections being raised on behalf of the defendant-revisionist, the issues were framed of which the aforesaid issue nos.7, 8 and 9 were adjudicated on a preliminary basis. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist is that the plaint was liable to be rejected as the suit was not maintainable and was specifically barred under the provisions of Section 70 of the Act of 1965. It has further been stated that in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Yaduraj Singh vs. District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society & Ors., 2012 (8) ADJ 691 , the order passed by the court below is illegal. Learned counsel has further relied upon several judgments rendered by the various High Courts as well as of the Supreme Court, namely, Dharoi Jalashya Matsya Udyog Sahakari Mandi Ltd. & Anr. Learned counsel has further relied upon several judgments rendered by the various High Courts as well as of the Supreme Court, namely, Dharoi Jalashya Matsya Udyog Sahakari Mandi Ltd. & Anr. vs. Gujarat Kendriya Matsya Udyog Sanstha, Ahmedabad, AIR 1988 GUJARAT 193 ; Smt. Vidyawati & Ors. vs. XIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur & Ors., 2007 (3) AWC 2448 ; Om Prakash Sharma vs. Vth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad & Ors., 1997 (31) ALR 25 ; Sachiv/Samanya Prabandhak, District Cooperative Bank Ltd. Ghazipur vs. Ram Sahan Rai & Anr., 1997 (1) AWC 97 ; M/s. Vora Automotives Pvt. Ltd. vs. Gopalrao Namdeorao Pohre & Ors., AIR 1993 BOMBAY 151 ; State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Manjeti Laxmi Kantha Rao (D) by L.Rs. & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 2220 and Kiran Devi vs. The Sahayak Awas Ayukta Evam Sahayak Nibandhak U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors., MANU/UP/1411/1991; 1991 (89) ALJ 904. 7. Section 70 of the Act of 1965 provides for dispute which may be referred to arbitration and the same is as follows:- "70. & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 2220 and Kiran Devi vs. The Sahayak Awas Ayukta Evam Sahayak Nibandhak U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors., MANU/UP/1411/1991; 1991 (89) ALJ 904. 7. Section 70 of the Act of 1965 provides for dispute which may be referred to arbitration and the same is as follows:- "70. Disputes which may be referred to arbitration.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute relating to the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken against a paid servant of a society arises- (a) among members, past members and person claiming through members, past members and deceased members ; or (b) between a member, past member or any person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member, and the society, its committee of management or any officer, agent or employee of the society, including any past officer, agent or employee ; or (c) between, the society or its committee and any past committee, any officer, agent or employee or any past officer, past agent or past employee or the nominee, heir or legal representative of any deceased officer, deceased agent, or deceased employee of the society; or (d) between a co-operative society and any other cooperative society or societies; such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for action in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules and no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of any such dispute: Provided that a dispute relating to an election under the provisions of this Act or rules made thereunder shall not be referred to the Registrar until after the declaration of the result of such election. (2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), the following shall be deemed to be included in dispute relating to the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, namely - (a) claims for amounts due when a demand for payment is made and is either refused or not complied with whether such claims are admitted or not by the opposite party; (b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor where the society has recovered from the surety and amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor as a result of the default of the principal debtor or whether such debt or demand is admitted or not ; (c) a claim by a society for any loss caused to it by a member, officer, agent, or employee including past or deceased member, officer, agent, or employee, whether individually or collectively and whether such loss be admitted or not; and (d) all matters relating to the objects of the society mentioned in the bye-laws as also those relating to the election of office-bearers. (3) If any question arises whether a dispute referred to the Registrar under this section is a dispute relating to the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, the decision thereon of the Registrar shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court." 8. Section 111 of the Act of 1965 specifies the bar of jurisdiction of the court which is as follows:- “111. Bar of jurisdiction of court. -Save as expressly provided in this Act, no civil or revenue court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of- (a) the registration of a co-operative society or its bye-laws or of an amendment of a bye-law; (b) the supersession or suspension of a committee of management; (c) any dispute required under Section 70 to be referred to the Registrar; and (d) any other order or award made under this Act.” 9. Therefore, the bar of jurisdiction of a civil court also includes any dispute that is required under Section 70 to be referred to the Registrar. 10. A perusal of the plaint itself reveals that there exists a dispute between the defendant-revisionist (which is a Co-operative Society) and the plaintiff-opposite party, who is a member of the Co-operative Society. Therefore, the bar of jurisdiction of a civil court also includes any dispute that is required under Section 70 to be referred to the Registrar. 10. A perusal of the plaint itself reveals that there exists a dispute between the defendant-revisionist (which is a Co-operative Society) and the plaintiff-opposite party, who is a member of the Co-operative Society. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 70 of the Act of 1965 refers to an instance of a dispute between a member, past member or any person claiming through a member and the Society. The issue which requires adjudication is that whether the suit which was for mandatory and prohibitory injunction would be a dispute as referred to in Section 70 of the Act of 1965. 11. In the judgment of Yaduraj Singh (supra), it appears that writ petitions were directed against an order dated 10 January 2007 passed by the sole arbitrator in exercise of power under Section 70 of the Act of 1965 whereby a sale-deed was declared to be null and void. The arbitrator had further directed to refund the price of land in question to the petitioners therein and thereafter to allot a land in question in accordance with U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 to any other member of the Society. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in that case was that the sole arbitrator had no jurisdiction to declare a sale-deed as null and void, since such an issue could have been raised in a court of law only by filing a civil suit. It was further the case of the petitioners therein that the appellate authority had exceeded its jurisdiction in dismissing the appeal inasmuch as when the sole arbitrator himself lacked jurisdiction, the appellate authority also would have no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. After considering the gamut of case law, the Court held that the business of Society includes making of housing accommodation available to its members and in furtherance thereof when a sale deed in respect to a vacant plot is executed to one of the members with condition of construction of house within a specified time, a dispute whether such condition is complied or not, ex faice, would be within the precincts (sic) of the words "business of the Society". In paragraph 33 of the aforesaid judgment, this Court held as follows:- “33. In paragraph 33 of the aforesaid judgment, this Court held as follows:- “33. Moreover, once it is held that dispute relating to business of Society can be settled by resorting to the machinery prescribed in the Act, 1965, the necessary component of this conclusion would be that a Civil Suit shall not lie. A civil suit lie but not when by express or necessary implication it is barred. When a special adjudicatory forum is provided in the statute for settlement of a dispute, the necessary implication is that the settlement of such dispute and the procedure prescribed in common law is barred. The Apex Court in Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Vs. Addl. Labour Commissioner, 2007 (11) SCC 756 has also held that U.P. Act, 1965 is a special Act dealing with the matters relating to Co-operative Society. It also held that special statute shall override and prevail over the general provisions.” 12. In the case of Dharoi Jalashya (supra), the High Court was considering the provisions of Section 96 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, which provided for ouster of jurisdiction of civil courts where disputes as mentioned in Section 96 of the Act required adjudication. In that case, a perusal of paragraph 2 reveals that the matter referred to injunction. The Court went on to note the definition of the word 'dispute' as occurring in the Section and while referring to its ordinary dictionary meaning held that each and every dispute touching the constitution, management or business of a Society is covered by the provisions of Section 96(1) of the Act. The Court further held that the dispute between the parties though not arising out of any transactions entered into between the parties is covered by the term 'dispute' occurring in Section 96 of the Act. The Court went on to hold that there was nothing in the Act to show that the dispute should be with regard to contractual rights of the parties but such disputes can be with regard to their respective civil rights also. 13. In the case of Smt. Vidyawati (supra), the Court noticed that the relief claimed in the plaint was for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from making constructions or encroaching upon the property by the defendant no.3, which was a Co-operative Housing Society. 13. In the case of Smt. Vidyawati (supra), the Court noticed that the relief claimed in the plaint was for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from making constructions or encroaching upon the property by the defendant no.3, which was a Co-operative Housing Society. The issue no.10 framed by the court below pertained to jurisdiction of civil court in view of Section 70 of the Act of 1965. The Court held as follows:- “5. In my opinion the judgment of the appellate court is erroneous in law. To allot the land to its members was/is are business of the society in question. Two persons are claiming the allotment of the same plot. Both of them are also claiming to be members of the society. The matter is squarely covered by Section 70 of the Act. The question as to whether defendant No. 1 was valid member of the society or not can also incidentally be decided by the Registrar under Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act. 6. Accordingly writ petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by the appellate court is set-aside. Order passed by the trial court is restored and it is held that the suit is not maintainable in view of Sections 70 and 111(c) of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act.” 14. In view of the aforesaid judgments of this Court as considered above, the present case at hand can be decided. 15. As stated above, the suit was both for prohibitory and mandatory injunction. The plaintiff-opposite party admittedly being a member of the Co-operative Society, which is the defendant-revisionist, the suit for injunction cannot lie before the court below. The bar of Section 70 read with Section 111 of the Act of 1965, in view of the aforesaid judgments of the High Courts, would be applicable to the dispute sought to be raised in the plaint concerning the business of the Society and the injunction sought in the suit is a dispute as referred to under Section 70 of the Act of 1965. 16. Accordingly, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order impugned dated 7 March 2019 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Judge, Small Causes Court, Moradabad, is set aside. 17. 16. Accordingly, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order impugned dated 7 March 2019 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Judge, Small Causes Court, Moradabad, is set aside. 17. It is, therefore, held that the suit being barred under the provisions of Section 70 of the Act of 1965, the plaint is liable to be rejected under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC and it is, accordingly, rejected. It is for the plaintiff-opposite party, if so advised, to move the authority concerned under the provisions of Section 70 of the Act of 1965 for redressal of his grievance, if any.