( 1. ) THIS is a revision filed by the plaintiffs-applicants under section 25 of the Provincial small Cause Courts Act against the decision passed by the Small Cause Judge (Additional District Judge, Guna) in Small Cause suit No. 7 of 1971, whereby the suit of the plaintiff applicants has been dismissed.

( 2. ) THE facts so far material for the purposes of this revision are as. under:-

(a) The plaintiff-applicants instituted a suit against the defendant-non-petitioner on the allegations that the non-petitioner M. P. State sahkari Bipnan Sangh Maryadit, Bhopal, had agreed to sell to the plaintiffs 480 bags of Jwar at the rate of Rs. 72 per quintal. The plaintiffs deposited Rs. 2,000 in pursuance of the sale agreement between the parties.

(b) The defendant-non-petitioner supplied 240 bags of Jwar on 16-7-1970 to the plaintiffs. Thus an amount of Rs. 1,000 was appropriated by the defendant for aforesaid bags of Jwar supplied to the plaintiffs.

(c) On 27 8-1970 the plaintiffs asked the defendant-non-petitioner to supply the remaining 240 bags of Jwar. Although in the night of 27-8-1970 delivery of the balance bags of Jwar was taken by the officers concerned from the godown of defendant-non-petitioner yet on 28-8-1970 the said bags were neither weighed nor delivered to the plaintiffs.

(d) This led to the riling of the suit for the refund of Rs. 1,000 by the plaintiff after notice to the defendant-non-petitioner,

( 3. ) THE defendant non petitioner contended inter alia that the suit is not maintainable in the Small Cause Court, but reference of the dispute could be made only to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, in view of the provisions of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 4. ) THE trial Court has dismissed the suit holding that the suit is barred from cognizance of the civil Court by virtue of the provisions contained in section 82 (1) (c) read with section 64 (1) (c) of the Act.

( 5. ) AGGRIEVED by this decision the present revision has been filed by the plaintiffs.

( 6. ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-applicant is that the suit does not fall within the ambit of section 82 (1) (c) read with section 64 (1) (c) of the Act. Therefore, the learned Small Cause Judge has illegally refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in him. The learned counsel for the defendant non petitioner has supported the impugned order.

( 7. ) AT the outset, it may be observed that the State of M. P. has been erroneously shown as non-petitioner. It is the M. P. State Sahkari Bipnan sangh Maryadit, Bhopal, who was and is the defendant in the case. Therefore, the State of M. P. is not treated as a party for the purposes of this revi-sion. Only the M. P. State Sahkari Bipnan Sangh is a party properly arrayed as non applicant in the case. Therefore, the applicant will correct the title of the revision by deleting the words "state of M. P. " from the description of the non-applicant.

( 8. ) SECTION 82 (1) of the Act provides-

"save as provided in this Act no civil or revenue Court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of- (a)-;- (b)-- (c) any dispute required to be referred to the registrar or his nominee or Board of nominees.

( 9. ) SECTION 64 (1) of the Act provides for two things, viz. , Firstly, it provides that the dispute which shall be referred to the Registrar must be touching the constitution, management or business of a society or liquidation of a society; and, secondly, it provides that the parties should have right to refer the matter. Sub-section (1) of section 64 runs as under:-"notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any dispute touching the constitution, management or business of a society or the liquidation of a society shall be referred to the registrar by any of the parties to the dispute if the parties thereto are among the following- (a) a society, its committee, any past committee, any past or present officer, any past o