S.K. Mal Lodha, J.
1. This rule, at the instance of the defendant No. 1 is directed against the order dated January 30, 1978, passed by the learned Munsif, Pali, in civil suit No. 162 of 1975.
2. Non-petitioner No. 1 is the plaintiff. Non-petitioners Nos. 2 & 3 are defendants Nos. 2 & 3. The plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 1 instituted suit against the defendant-petitioner and non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 for Rs. 4867/- in the court of Munsif, Pali on November 20, 1975 averring that the plaintiff has supplied goods to defendant No. 1 on credit and that a sum of Rs. 4887/- is outstanding against defendant No. 1. It was also stated by the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 is a co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Cc-operative Societies Act, 1960 (No. XVII of 1961)(for short, 'the Act') Defendant No. 1 was served with the notice on the suit for appearing on April 30, 1976 and on that day, an application was filed inter alia stating that according to Section 82(c) of the Act, any dispute touching the constitution, management or business of a society is required to be referred to the Registrar, or his nominee or Board of Nominees and the civil court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit. In that application, reference was also made to Section 64(1) of the Act which deals with disputes. It was, therefore, prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff may be dismissed. The plaintiff filed reply to the application dated April 30, 1676 moved by the defendant No. 1 and amongst others, it was mentioned that the provisions of the Act are applicable only within the State of Madhya Pradesh as such, those provisions cannot be extended to the State of Rajasthan and, therefore, the provisions of the Act are not applicable in the present case. It was also contended that provisions of Section 82(c) of the Act are not applicable as the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Madhya Pradesh has got no jurisdiction to interfere in the dispute. The learned Munsif, vide his order dated January 30, 1978, held that according to Section 1(2) of the Act. it is applicable only within the State, of Madhya Pradesh and as the suit was instituted in the State of Rajasthan, the provisions of the Act cannot be made applicable to the suit and, therefore, he dismissed defendant No. Vs application with costs which were assessed at Rs. 51/-. Feeling dissatisfied with the order dated January 30, 1978, defendant No. 1 petitioner has obtained the rule from this Court.
3. I have heard Mr. P.K. Bhansali learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.C. Samdana, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioner.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the suit instituted by the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of Section 82(1)(c) of the Act as it concerned a dispute between the supplier or seller of goods making a claim for the recovery of the balance of the price of the goods supplied in respect of which a cheque is alleged to have been given in the name of the plaintiff and this dispute was referable to the Registrar under Section 64 of the Act for it is a dispute 'touching the business of the Co-operative Society'. Thus, according to the learned Counsel, the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as its cognizance is expressly barred under Section 9, CPC. Mr. K.G. Samdaria on the other hand supponed the order under revision by which the learned Munsif held that the Act is applicable only within the State of M.P. and as the suit was instituted in the State of Rajasthan, the provisions of the Act are not applicable. Relevant portion of Section 64 of he Act reads as under,-
64 disputes. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any dispute touching the constitution, management or business of a society or the liquidation of a society shall be referred to the Registrar by any of the parties to the dispute if the parties thereto are among the following,-
(a) ...(b) ...(c) a person other than a member of the society who has been granted a loan by the society or with whom the society has or had business transactions and any person claiming through such a person;.(emphasis supplied)
This section opens with a non-obstante clause. The intention seems to be that ordinarily the co operative societies should not be dragged in civil courts, if this could be avoided. Section 64 provides a comparatively cheap and speedy remedy in regard to the disputes concerning a society. The term 'business' according to its dictionary meaning, means 'activity, occupation, function'. While considering the provisions of Section 75 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 in which the words 'touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society' have been' used, Kan Singh, J. (as he then was) in Khubilal v. Power House Karamchari Girah Nirman Sahakari Samiti, Udaipur observed,-
The term business, as already noticed, means the activity, occupation or function of the society....
The dispute relating to the supply of goods is clearly a question touching the business of a Society as it is alleged that the cloth was supplied to it from time to time by the plaintiff. The learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-non petitioner did not dispute this but merely submitted that there is no allegation in the application submitted by the petitioner regarding Section 64(1)(c) of the Act. It was clearly stated by the defendant petitioner that Section 64 relates so the dispute. The actual words used in application are:
blh izdkj e/;izns'k lgdkjh lfefr;kWa vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 64] fML?kqV ds lEcU/k ls crykrh gSA
From the reply to the application and the documents it can be easily inferred that the different varieties of voil were sold to the petitioner in connection with the business of the defendant-society. A dispute relating to the supply of goods and the payment of the price in respect of them is a question relating to the business of the society within the meaning of Section 64(1)(c) of the Act for the words are 'a person or with whom the society has or had business transactions and any person claiming through such a person' and the Registrar has exclusive jurisdiction to hear such a dispute Sub-section (3) of Section 64 provides that where a question is a dispute within the meaning of Section 64 of the Act. it shall be decided by the Registrar and that he is a final authority to decide whether a case is dispute under Section 61 or not and such an order cannot be questioned in any court of law. I am, therefore, of the opinion that dispute in the present suit is covered by Section 64(1)(c) of the Act., Section 82 of the Act creates a bar to the jurisdiction of the courts. It will be useful here to refer the material portion of Section 82 of the Act,-
82. Bar of Jurisdiction of Court (1) Save as provided in this Act no civil or revenue Court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of-
(a) ...(b) ...(c) any dispute required to be referred to the Registrar or his nominee or Board of nominees;(d) ... (2) ...(3) ...
A careful perusal of this section shows that where a dispute is required to be referred to the Registrar, then, save as provided in the Act. no civil or revenue court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of it. It follows, therefore, that where a remedy is provided under the Act, no suit or other proceeding shall lie in the civil court except to the extent permitted by the Act itself In this case, prima facie, the matter seems to fall within the preview of the Registrar and, therefore, the parties should have approached the Registrar. According to Section 9, CPC, a suit is said to be expressly banned, when it is barred by any enactment for the time being in force Section 9, C.P.C. itself postulates the barring of jurisdiction of civil courts by a competent legislation with respect to a particular class of suits of a civil nature. As held by me above, the dispute in this case is covered by Section 64(1)(c) and hence jurisdiction of the civil court is barred under Section 82 of the Act. The learned Munsif has exercised jurisdiction not vested in him by law when he dismissed the petitioners application dated April 30, 1976 holding that according to Section 1(2) of the Act, the Act will be applicable only to the State of Madhya Pradesh and since the suit has been instituted in Rajasthan, the Act is not applicable. He completely lost sight of Section 9, CPC. which lays down that the civil court, subject to the provisions contained in the Code, have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits for which their cognizance has been either expressly or impliedly barred. The jurisdiction of the civil court is expressly barred under Section 82 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff non-petitioner drew my attention to the cases reported in Ram Ram Sinha Ckowdhury v. Nitoi Chandra Ghost and Ors. : AIR1951Pat407 , Baroda Oil Cakes Traders v. Parshottam Narayandas Bagulia and Anr. AIR 1964 Bom. 491, Balloram v. Firm Seth Uttamchand Bishandas 1960 RLW 397, and Ramsingh Madhosingh v. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Distt. Indore and Anr. : AIR1973MP158 . but none if there is applicable to the facts of this case and, therefore, no useful purpose will be served by discussing them in detail.
5. For the reasons mentioned, I allow this revision application and net aside the order dated January 30, 1978 passed by learned Munsif, Pali and as the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit was barred, I further direct that the plaint presented before the civil court should be returned to the plaintiff-non-petitioner so that he may be entitled to present the claim before the Registrar in accordance with the provisions of the Act. la the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.