Sunil Thomas, J.

The plaintiffs in O.S.No.165 of 2011 of the Sub Court, Pala, aggrieved by the finding in issue No.1 and the order returning the plaint to be presented before the proper court having jurisdiction has preferred this appeal.

2. The plaintiffs are legal representatives of one Rajan Achari. Defendants 1 to 4 are the legal representatives of one Lakshmikutty Ammal. Both the predecessors stood as sureties to the 5th defendant, for availing a loan from the 6th defendant, Kottayam District Co-operative Bank. The 5th defendant committed default in repayment of loan, whereupon proceedings were initiated by the Co-operative Society before the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies and obtained an arbitration award. During the pendancy of the execution proceedings, predecessors of the plaintiffs as well as that of defendants 1 to 4 died and their legal representatives stepped into the shoes.

3. Since the property belonging to the plaintiffs were proceeded against, under a threat of sale, plaintiffs discharged the liability due to the bank. Thereafter, the present suit was filed by the plaintiffs to recover one half of the said amount due from legal representatives of the co-surety, invoking Sec.146 of the Indian Contract Act.

4. In the written statement filed by defendants 1 to 4, they set up a contention that the civil suit was not maintainable and an arbitration proceeding under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 alone was sustainable. It was contended that Sec.69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act would operate as a bar. Learned Sub Judge raised a preliminary issue and after hearing both sides, held that in the light of Section 69 and Section 100 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, the suit was not maintainable. Plaint was ordered to be returned for presentation before the proper court.

5. The above judgment is under challenge in this appeal. Heard both sides and examined the records.

6. The suit is one instituted by the legal representatives of one co-surety, as against another co-surety through his legal representatives. The principal debtor is the fifth defendant. The contention of the defendants was that the suit falls within the ambit of Section 69(2)(b) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and hence, hit by Section 100 of the said Act. Section 69 provides that a dispute between the persons mentioned in the Section or such person with the Society or between the Societies shall be adjudicated by the authorities mentioned therein. In the case of certain category of disputes, authority vests with the Co-operative Arbitration Court and the remaining with the Registrar. Section 69(2)(b) provides:

“b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor, where the society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor, as a result of the default of the principal debtor, whether such debt or demand is admitted or not”.

7. The court below held that the suit falls within the ambit of Section 69(2)(b) and hence, the suit was not maintainable in the light of Section 100 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Section 100 of the Act provides as follows:

“Bar of jurisdiction of Courts: No civil or revenue court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of any matter for which provision is made in this Act”.

The view of the court below was that the principal debtor was made a party to the suit and hence, the bar will apply. The plaint discloses that there was a specific averment in the plaint that the 5th defendant was included in the party array being a proper party only, and that no relief was claimed against her, since the claim against the principal debtor was maintainable only as per Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. It was further mentioned that the plaintiffs reserved their right to proceed against her. Evidently, the plaintiffs being conscious about the bar under Section 69, had specifically and categorically pleaded th