( 1 ) WITH the consent of the parties, both the appeals are heard together and hereby decided by this common judgment and order.

( 2 ) THE only point involved in these two appeals is as under : (A) Whether looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the dispute of the parties falls under Sec. 96 (1) (b) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) or the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the same ?

( 3 ) THE short facts in nutshell are as under : the appellant/original plaintiff is a society whereas the respondent no. 1 is/was a member of the appellant society and the respondent no. 2 is the purchaser of plot no. 16 from respondent no. 1 vide registration no. 1982 with the Sub-registrar office at Anand for a consideration of Rs. 2,18,100. 00.

( 4 ) IT is the case of the appellant-society that merely by registered document executed between the respondents, the respondent no. 2 do not get any right or interest in the said plot. As per the rules of the society, necessary permission must be obtained by the member of the society i. e. respondent no. 1 to sell the plot to any other third party and that third party should also apply to the society for becoming the member of the society and only on passing of resolution, the said third party can become a member of the society. Moreover, as per the appellant, the third party has to pay transfer-fee, entrance-fee etc. and thereafter only the third party can become member of the society. In view of the fact that no permission is sought by either of the respondents, the alleged Sale-deed between the respondent no. 1 and 2 is null and void and not binding to the appellant-society. Under the circumstances, the appellant-society filed Regular Civil Suit no. 94/00 before the court of Civil Judge (S. D.), Anand and also notice of motion exh. 5 to restrain the respondent no. 2 from constructing anything on the plot till the final hearing of the suit.

( 5 ) THE learned trial Judge vide his order dated 1. 7. 00 initially ordered the respondent no. 2 to maintain status-quo in respect of the plot in question. Later on, after hearing the parties, the learned trial judge vide his order dated 30. 9. 00 dismissed the notice of motion and also vacated ex-parte injunction granted initially on 1. 7. 00. Hence, the appellant/society has filed appeal from order no. 386/00 under Sec. 104 read with Order 34 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 6 ) THE appeal from order no. 385/00 is filed on the ground that after the order of status-quo was passed against the respondent no. 2, the appellant gave application exh. 30 stating that though the present respondent no. 2 was knowing the order of the court of status-quo, the respondent no. 2 disregarding the order of the court, put bricks and other articles in the foundation and also prepared a small tank. Therefore, the appellants prayed that respondent no. 2 has violated the order of the court and he should be sent to civil jail or his property should be attached.

( 7 ) ON his application, the learned trial judge issued show-cause notice to respondent no. 2 by passing order on 26. 7. 00. Ultimately, by order dated 30. 3. 00, the learned trial judge held respondent no. 2 responsible for disobedience of the order of the court and directed to pay Rs. 3,000. 00 as compensation to the appellant for the disobedience on or before 16. 10. 00. Aggrieved by the said order below exh. 30 dated 30. 9. 00 in Special Civil Suit no. 94/00, the appellant-society has filed this appeal from order under Sec. 104 read with Order 34 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that the compensation of Rs. 3,000. 00 is not adequate in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned trial judge erred in accepting the apology from the respondent no. 2 and that contemnor is required to be punished by sending him to civil jail and that the learned trial judge also erred in not ordering for removing the co