J.P. Bajpai, J.

This short point involved in this revision relates to the question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit as framed and based on the allegations as made in the plaint claiming refund of certain amount already paid towards market fees by contending that the said amount towards market fees was illegally recovered and, therefore, was liable to be refunded and that the defendant-Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti be restrained by a permanent injunction from recovering in future market fees on the agricultural produce purchased outside the Mandi areas and imported by the plaintiff inside the Mandi area for the purposes of consumption in manufacture of edible oil.

The defendant Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of such a suit by contending that in view of" section 61 of M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam', the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was excluded and that the levy of market fees could not be challenged before the Civil-Court on the allegation as made in the plaint. The argument put-forth was that since section 61 provides a special machinery for adjudication of disputes about liability towards market fees and directs that if any such question' arises whether a sum is due to the Market Committee on account of any charge, fees, rent, etc. or on any other account under the provisions of the Act, or any rule or bye-laws made thereunder, the same shall be referred to the Director who shall after making such enquiry as he may deem fit with due opportunity to the person from whom the same is sought to be recovered, decide the question and that his decision shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court of law.

It would be significant to mention that prior to the institution of the suit, the defendant had already given a reply to the notice served by the plaintiff and in the said reply it was specifically stated that if the plaintiff disputed his liability to pay market fees, he was free to make a reference to Director and the decision of the Director will be binding on the Market Committee and also on the plaintiff. Despite receiving the said reply, the plaintiff chose to file the suit and did not make any reference as contemplated by sub-section (2) of section 61 of the Adhiniyam.

The trial Court had, however, rejected the preliminary objection raised by the defendant and had held that the suit for refund by raising the dispute about the liability of the plaintiff to pay market fees and for claiming permanent injunction restraining the Market Committee from recovering market fees on such agricultural produce which was imported within the market area by the plaintiff for the purpose of consumption in manufacture of edible oil was tenable, and that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not ousted by virtue of the provisions of section 61 of the Adhiniyam.

In order to appreciate the contentions put-forth by the parties it would be relevant to reproduce the provisions of section 61 of the Adhiniyam for the sake of ready reference:

61. Recovery of sums due to market committee or Board.--(1) Any sum due to a market committee or the Board on account of any charge, costs, expenses, fees, rent or any other account under the provisions of this Act or any rule or bye-law made thereunder shall be recoverable in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.

(2) If any question arises whether a sum is due under sub-section (1), it shall be referred to the Director and he shall after making such enquiry as he deems fit, and after giving to the person from whom the sum is alleged to be the due, an opportunity of being, heard decide the question and his decision shall be final and shall not he called in question in any Court of law.

Since the question relates to the recovery of market fees, it would also be relevant to reproduce sub-rule (4) of Rules 56 and 57 of the M.P. Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1962. The