The main legal point established in the judgment is that a credit agency is not required to institute a suit for the recovery of moneys lent, as its remedy is provided in the enactments, and it has to have recourse to the special machinery which is more expedient.

( 1 ) UNSUCCESSFUL plaintiff is the appellant. Plaintiffsyndicate Bank is a nationalised bank; it instituted the suit on 2-6-1987, for recovery of money from defendants 1 to 13. The first defendant is a Co-operative society registered under the Karnataka co-operative Societies Act, 1959. Defendant-4 was the President of the Society. The President and members of the Managing committee, in pursuance of resolution dated 6-6-1979, borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,58,000/- at 10 1/2% interest per annum to be repaid in five equal annual instalments commencing from 30th May 1980. They jointly executed a promissory note on 8th June 1979. Defendants 2 and 3 are the Secretary and Chairman of the society, respectively. Defendants 4 to 13 are the members of the Society. It is averred in the plaint that out of the sanctioned loan amount a sum of Rs. 1,51, 281-00 has been disbursed, from time to time, to defendants 4 to 13 i. e. members. On 8th June 1979, they also executed personal guarantee bonds in favour of plaintiff. Properties in Plaint 'a' and 'b' schedules are those given as security to the plaintiff for due discharge of loan amounts taken. The defendants while admitting the loan transaction, contended that suit is untenable and is liable to be dismissed. There were other contentions also. On the preliminary question regard ing maintainability, issue No. 4 was framed. After hearing the arguments, the learned Judge has held that suit is not maintainable; accordingly it is dismissed. Mr. Ashwathram, learned Counsel for appellant, submitted that the decision of the Court below is erroneous. Alternati vely, he submitted that if the suit is not maintainable on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction, the plaint could have been returned for presentation to proper court or it could have been rejected under o. 7, R. 11 (d),c. P. C. As our decision on the said submissions has to solely rest on the construction to be placed on the relevant statutory provisions, we propose to dispose of the appeal accordingly at the stage of admission itself. We are mainly concerned with. Karna taka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (Act 11 of 1959) (hereinafter called 'k. C. S. Act'), which came into force on 1st June 1960, and Karnataka Agricultural credit Operations and Miscellaneous Pro visions Act, 1974, Act 2 of 1975 (herein after called "credit Operations Act"), which came into force on 17th July 1975. By Section 17 (Chapter 4) of Credit Operations Act, certain provisions of K. C. S. Act were amended by inserting couple of new provisions. Therefore, the provisions of K. C. S. Act, 1959, have to be read with these insertions. Relevant provisions are:"k. C. S. Act, 1959. Section 2{e-1) - credit agency' means a credit agency as defined in the Karnataka Agricultural credit Operations and Miscellaneous provisions Act, 1974 ; and in the latter act (Act 2 of 75) it is defined to mean : (i) a banking company as defined in the Banking Regulation Act, 1949; (ii) the State Bank of India constitu ted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955; (iii) Subsidiary Bank as defined in the state Bank of India (subsidiary Banks) act, 1959; (iv) a corresponding new bank constituted under the Banking Com panies (Acquisition and Transfer of undertakings) Act, 1970;" clause (f) of this Act (2 of 75) defines 'financial assistance' as: ' " (f) "financial assistance" for the purpose of this Act means, assistance granted whether by way of loans, advan ces, guarantee or otherwise for agricul tural purposes. " in the instant case, plaintiff-Syndicate bank is the "credit agency". Section 70 (1) of the K. C. S. Act, 1959, provides for the settlement of dis putes. Clause (d) of this section reads thus:"70 (1) (D): between the society and any other co-operative society or a cre dit agency such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of such dispute". (emphasis supplied) s