A.A. Halbe, President- This revision arises in the execution application in original appeals No. 313, 314,1214, 1215, 1405 & 1406/94. The revision applicant Indrapuri Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. has been ordered to pay the amounts to the complainants.

2. The important question which has been raised by the applicant Indrapuri Pat Sanstha is that this is a dispute between the Co-operative Society and its members and hence it should be referred to the Co-operative Court and cannot be decided by the Consumer Court. The said proposition is supported by various rulings and judgments of this State Commission in Appeal No. 1376/95. 1368/95 wherein it is held that the complaints were not tenable before the District Forum.

3. Reverting to the salient facts, it seems that the complainants were the members of the Indrapuri Nagari Sahakari Sanshta, they had deposited certain amounts with the society. Interest was payable to them for these deposits. The total amount that was repayable was Rs. 72,450/-. However, there was default on the part of the applicant Pat Sanstha and its Managing Members. The execution was taken out and proceedings u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act had commenced.

3. The learned advocate for the applicant has drawn our attention to the above judgment as well as various other judgments. Before proceeding to those citations we may also point out that in Sec. 91 sub-section(3) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, there is a clear provision that no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of any dispute referred to in subsection(1) of the said Section. In this case we find that the complainants are the depositors of the society. They failed to recover their dues. In the case reported in II(1993) C.P.J. 168(N.C.) National Commission observed that the dispute between the Co-operative Bank and the Constituent was referable to the Co-operative Court u/s 91 of the Mahrashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The Supreme Court in the case of Most. Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and others etc. v. Moran Mar Marthoma & others clearly observed that the ouster of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court can be raised by the party at any stage since the said order is nonest. In the case of Smt. Jeevani Bano v. Smt. Asha Arora and others it is clearly laic down that the question of jurisdiction can be raised at any time even in appeal and even in execution proceedings when the prima facie no jurisdiction is vested in the court. The Bombay High Court in A.I.R. 1985 page 150 while considering the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act observed that even if the ground is' not pleaded regarding jurisdiction. it can be taken up at any stage. In the case of Public Prosecutor v. Devireddi Nagi Reddi. it is observed that if there is inherent lack of jurisdiction the proceedings are null and void and may be attached in a colateral proceedings. In III(1994) CPJ 500, the Karnataka State Commission in the case of The Kulve Gram Seva Sahakari Sangha Ltd. v. Mahabaleshwar Ramakrishna Bhai6 clearly observed that Sec. 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. 1959 clearly bar the settlement of dispute arising between the member and the Society touching the business of the Society by firm. Same view is canvassed by Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act. 1960 in the case of Dilip Singh & Ors. v. Prabhandhak & Anr. With these propositions of law we are clearly of the view that the execution taken out by the members against the Society is clearly barred. The learned Advocate for the O.P. has contended that the applicant did not challenge even when the order was passed by the State Commission. However this argument cannot be upheld in view of the fact that the District Forum is clearly barred from entertaining any dispute between the members and the Society and we may here observe that the District Forum is alike a Civil Court in dispensation of justice. It is a Forum created under the Statute which insist on s