Plaint rejection and revisional interference depend on an apparent statutory bar and final disposal, not disputed facts.

Revisional interference under Section 115 CPC is confined to jurisdictional error, failure to exercise jurisdiction, or material irregularity, and an order refusing return of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 does not amount to final disposal of the suit merely because forum is affected. The court therefore would not interfere in revision on that basis. A plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) only when the statutory bar is apparent from the plaint itself; where the bar under Sections 96 and 167 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act depends on disputed facts, including whether the dispute touches the business of the society, summary rejection is unwarranted. The revision was dismissed and the suit was left to proceed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order refusing return of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure could be interfered with in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure; (ii) Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the suit was barred by Sections 96 and 167 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether an order refusing return of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure could be interfered with in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: The revisional power under Section 115 is confined to jurisdictional error, failure to exercise jurisdiction, or material irregularity. An order returning a plaint does not finally dispose of the suit, because the plaint can be presented to the court having jurisdiction and the suit continues in accordance with law. The expression "final disposal of the suit" in the proviso to Section 115 requires final disposal of the suit itself, not merely an interlocutory order affecting forum.

Conclusion: The refusal to return the plaint was not revisable on the ground of final disposal, and no interference was warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the suit was barred by Sections 96 and 167 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961.

Analysis: Rejection under Order 7 Rule 11(d) is permissible only when the bar of law is apparent from the plaint itself. Whether a dispute is one "touching the business of the society" requires examination of the nature of the transaction and the pleaded facts. The plaint alleged encroachment on an allotted plot and manipulation of revenue entries, which made the controversy dependent on facts that could not be conclusively determined merely from the plaint. In such circumstances, the issue was not fit for summary rejection at the threshold.

Conclusion: The plaint was not liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d), and the trial court's order was in law.

Final Conclusion: The revision application failed and was dismissed, leaving the suit to proceed before the trial court with jurisdictional objections open to be decided in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) only when the statutory bar is evident from the plaint alone, and an order refusing return of plaint is not revisable as a final disposal unless it would itself finally terminate the suit.

---