( 1 ) HEARD. Leave to remove the office objections within two weeks.

( 2 ) ADMIT. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents waives service. By consent, heard forthwith.

( 3 ) THE present appeal arises from the order dated 29-1-2007 passed in notice No. 1567 of 2006 whereby the learned single Judge has issued the warrant of arrest against the appellants on account of non-compliance of the liability under the recovery certificate issued by the concerned authority in terms of section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, hereinafter called as "the said Act".

( 4 ) THOUGH the impugned order is sought to be challenged on various grounds, it is not necessary to consider all those grounds and suffice to refer to only one ground, namely, absence of jurisdiction to the learned single Judge to entertain the matter in view of the specific provisions of law comprised under section 101 (3) read with section 156 (l) (e) of the said Act. Attention is also drawn in that regard to the decision in the matter of Vithal Yadav Mhase vs. Amdar Balasaheb Thorat Nagari Sahakari Path Sanstha Maryadit through its administrator, Ashvi (BK), Dist. Ahmednagar, reported in 2001 (3) Mh. L. J. 650, delivered by one of us (R. M. S. Khandeparkar, J. ).

( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that the proceedings before the learned single Judge were initiated for execution of the recovery certificate dated 23-8-2000 for a sum of Rs. 80,00,700/ -.

( 6 ) THE said proceedings were sought to be proceeded with in terms of rule 37 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The impugned order further discloses that on account of refusal on the part of the appellants to repay the debt in accordance with the recovery certificate that action section 51 (b) of the Civil procedure Code was attracted and therefore the warrant of arrest was sought to be issued against the appellants herein. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, drawing attention to the provisions of law comprised under sections 101 and 156 of the said Act as referred to above, submitted that the learned single judge has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and the proceedings, if any, could have been initiated in terms of the sub-section (3) of section 101 r/w section 156 (l) (e) of the said Act. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that no such point regarding lack of jurisdiction was sought to be raised on behalf of the appellants and it is for the first time that such a point is sought to be raised in this appeal.

( 7 ) THE objection to the jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and it relates to lack of jurisdiction to the Civil Court to entertain proceedings for execution of a recovery certificate issued under the said Act. Considering the provisions of the said Act, it can hardly be disputed that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in that regard. Merely because the appellants had not raised such an objection before the learned single Judge, that would not preclude the appellants from raising the said point for the first time in the appeal. As the Civil Court clearly lacks jurisdiction to deal with the matter, no amount of consent or failure to raise objection at earlier stage of the proceedings would confer jurisdiction upon the Civil Court to deal with the execution of the recovery certificate issued under the said Act.

( 8 ) THE provisions of law comprised under section 101 (3) clearly provide that a certificate granted by the Registrar under sub-section (1) or (2) shall be final and a conclusive proof of the arrears stated to be due thereunder and the same shall be recoverable according to the law for the time being in force, for the recovery of land revenue. Further section 156 (1) (e) specifically provides that the registrar or any officer subordinate to him and empowered by him in this behalf or an officer of such society as may be notified by the State Government, who is empo