Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - This is second appeal by defendant no.1Gurdeep Singh having failed in both the courts below.

2. Respondent No.1-plaintiff (a Co-operative Society) filed suit against defendant No.1-appellant and proforma respondents No.2 to 4 as defendant Nos.2 to 4. The plaintiff’s case is that the plaintiff granted loan of Rs.27,000/- (Rupees twenty seven thousand) to defendant No.1 on the guarantee of defendants No2 and 3 and on recommendation of defendants No.3 and 4. Defendants failed to repay the loan amount and interest. Accordingly, plaintiff sought recovery of Rs.34,905/- (Rupees thirty four thousand nine hundred and five) which includes principal and interest amount.

3. Defendants inter alia pleaded that defendant No.1 had raised loan of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only from the plaintiff-Society and the same has been repaid along with interest and the accounts were adjusted on 25.11.1999. It was denied that defendant Nos.2 and 3 stood guarantors. Rate of interest of 24% per annum claimed by the plaintiff was also disputed and it was pleaded that rate of interest was 6% per annum or at the most 9% per annum. Various other pleas were also raised.

4. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 03.03.2009 decreed the plaintiff’s suit against defendants No.1 to 3 only and dismissed the suit qua defendant No.4. First appeal preferred by defendants No.1 to 3 has been dismissed by Additional District Judge, Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 30.09.2009. Feeling aggrieved, defendant No.1 has preferred the instant second appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

6. Learned counsel for defendant No.1-appellant contended that admittedly defendant No.1-appellant is member of respondent No.1-plaintiff (Cooperative Society) and the loan was advanced to defendant No.1 as member of the society. It is contended that in view thereof, the dispute was required to be referred to the arbitration of the Registrar in view of Section 102 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (in short the Act), and jurisdiction of Civil Court to try the suit is, therefore, barred by Section 102(1) as well as by Section 128(1)(c) of the Act. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh versus State of Haryana and others, 1999(2) RSJ 341.

7. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No.1-plaintiff contended that in view of Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ran Singh versus The Gandhar Agricultural Cooperative Service Society, Gandhar, 1975 PLJ 163, jurisdiction of Civil Court is not barred.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-plaintiff also contended that no plea relating to bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court was raised by the defendants in the written statement nor any issue relating to the same was framed and therefore, this plea cannot be raised in second appeal. Per contra, learned counsel for appellant contended that plea of bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court was raised even before the lower appellate court and therefore, it could be raised in the second appeal also. It was also contended that the plea relating to bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court being purely legal plea based on facts pleaded in the plaint, can be raised even for the first time in the High Court in second appeal. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Laiquiddin & another versus Kamala Devi Misra (Dead) by L.Rs & others, [2010(1) Law Herald (SC) 548] : 2010(1) RCR (Civil) 687.

9. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. It is correct that in the written statement, defendants did not specifically raise the issue of bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court nor any issue to this effect was framed. However, in the lower appellate court, this argument was raised but was repelled by the lower appellate