A dispute touching the constitution, management or business of a co-operative society is not justiceable in a civil court in view of section 55 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961.

Pritpal Singh, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-Satnam Singh against the judgment and decree dated January 12, 1976 of the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, by which the decision of the trial Court rejecting his plaint was affirmed and his first appeal was dismissed.

2. The admitted facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant Satnam Singh, as a Member of the Tarn Taran Primary Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank, defendant No. 1, took a loan of Rs. 6000/- from the Bank for installing a tubewell. At his instance Rs. 2671/- out of the loan were paid to Kapla Industries, defendant No. 2, for supplying engine of the tubewell. The rest of the amount of loan i.e. Rs. 3329/- was received by the appellant himself. Since defendant No. 2 failed to supply the engine despite several requests, this suit was brought by the appellant against the defendants-respondents for declaration that he is liable to pay only Rs. 3329/- as refund of loan to defendant No. 1.

2A. The Tarn Taran, Primary Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank contested the suit and inter alia objected that in view of section 55 of the Punjab Co- operative Societies Act, 1961, (hereinafter called `the Act) the appellants suit is not triable in a Civil Court and further that the suit is incompetent as the requisite notice under section 79 of the Act was not served by the appellant before filing it.

3. The learned trial Court framed ten issues out of which following two issues were treated as preliminary issues:-

(1) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit?

(3) Whether a notice was given as prescribed by law before filing the suit, if not its effect?

4. Both the preliminary issues were decided against the appellant by the trial Court with the result that the appellants plaint was rejected. The lower appellate Court affirmed these findings and dismissed the first appeal of the plaintiff-appellant.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and I find not the least reason to interfere with the concurrent decision of the Court below.

6. It is provided by section 55 of the Act that any dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society shall be referred to the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies for decision and no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such disputes. It is clarified in sub-section (2) that a claim by a Society for any debt or demand due to it from its member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not, shall be deemed to be a dispute touching the constitution, management or business of the Co-operative Society.

7. It is not disputed that the appellant is a member of defendant No. 1 Bank which is a Co-operative Society. It is also admitted that the appellant was granted a loan of Rs.6000/- by the Bank. There can be no manner of doubt that a sum of Rs.2671/- out of the loan was paid by the Bank to Kapla Industries, defendant No. 2, for supplying the engine of the tubewell at the instance of the appellant. The Bank was not obliged to install a tubewell in the land of the appellant and, therefore, it could not have paid the price of the engine to defendant No. 2 on its own responsibility. The defendant-Bank is, therefore, entitled to claim refund of the whole loan from the appellant and in any case a dispute arising of its claim to refund the loan must be deeemed to be a dispute touching the constitution, management or business of the Co- operative Society which is not justiceable in the civil Court in view of section 55 of the Act.

8. The contention of the learned appellants counsel is that despite the prohibition contained in section 55 of the Act such a dispute can be entertained and decided by a civil court. In support of this contention, I was referred to a judgment of this Court in Harbhajan Singh v. The State of Punjab and others, 1972 P.L.R. 854. In this judgment it was held as follows:-

"Another point raised on