JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by the defendants against an order of the appellate court holding that the civil court has jurisdiction to try the present suit
(2.) THERE is a co-operative society named Asad Bidi Workers Co-operative society, Bundi. THERE is a managing committee of this society of which Shri Usuf Ali, defendant No. 1 was the Chairman. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that a special general meeting of the society was held on 21-5-65 under sec. 16 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) at which a resolution was passed removing Shri Usuf Ali from the office of Chairman and appointing in his place Shri Mohammed Usman, plaintiff No. 2. It is further alleged that Shri Usuf Ali along with the other defendants interferes with the management of the business of the society by officers who are entitled to manage it. The suit has been contested by the defendants. It is alleged that Shri Usuf Ali continues to be the Chairman of the society and the election, if any, of Shri Mohammad Usman as Chairman is illegal as the meeting called for 21-5-65 was declared illegal on 20-5-65 by the Assistant Registrar. Further it is alleged that Shri Mola Bux through whom the suit has been instituted on behalf of the society was removed from the office of Secretary before the institution of the suit and could not bring a suit in the name of the society. It was also alleged that Shri Rampratap, Manager, who is plaintiff No. 3 had been suspended from the office of manager of the society on 17-5-65 before the institution of the suit. Mohammad Usman is plaintiff No. 2. The suit was instituted on 25-5-65. The defendants took a plea that in view of sec. 61 of the Act the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. This objection was upheld by the trial court, which dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bundi, set aside the order of the trial court The ground on which he did so is not clear from his judgment. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I am satisfied that the order of the appellate court is erroneous. Sec. 61 of the Act runs as follows : "arbitration - (1) If any dispute touching the business of a society (other than dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the society) arises between members or past members of the society or person claiming through a member or past or deceased member, or between members or past members or person so claiming and any officer, agent or servant of the society past or present or between the society or its committee and any officer, agent, member or servant of the society, past or present it shall be referred to the Registrar for decision by himself or his nominee or if either of the parties so desire, to arbitration of three arbitrators who shall be the Registrar or his nominee and two persons of whom one shall be nominated by each of the parties concerned. (2) A dispute shall include claims by a society for debts or demands due to it from a member or past member or the heirs or assets of a past member whether such debts or demand be admitted or not. Provided that if the question at issue between a society and a claimant or between different claimants is one involving complicated questions of law or fact the Registrar may, if he thinks fit, suspend proceedings in the matter until the question has been tried by a regular suit instituted by one of the parties or by the society; (3) If no such suit is instituted within six months of the Registrar's order suspending proceedings the Registrar shall take action as laid down in sub-sec. (l) of this section. " ''officer" is defined under sec. 3 (d) as including a Chairman, Vice-Chair-man, Secretary, Treasurer, Member of Committee and any other person empowered under the rules or under the by-laws to give directions in regard to the business of a society. The dispute as to whether Shri Usuf Ali was legally removed from the office of Chairman and Shri Mohammad Usman was elected in his place is a matter touching the business of the society. This is the dispute that has arisen between some members on the one hand and the Chairman Shri Usuf Ali on the other. This dispute squarely falls under sec. 61 (1) of the Act. In B. S. G. Samiti vs. Suraj Nath (l) the election of the Chairman and the Directors of a co-operative society was challenged. The case was governed by Rule 115 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Rules 1936 the relevant part of which ran as follows: "any dispute touching the business of a registered society - (i) between members. . . . . . of a society. (ii) or between a member. . . . . . . . . and the society or its committee. (iii ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (iv ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and shall be decided either by the Registrar or by arbitration and shall for that purpose be referred in writing to the Registrar. Explanation 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Explanation 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Explanation 3 The business of a society includes all matters relating to the objects of the society mentioned in the bye-laws as also those relating to the election of office-bearers of a Society. " It is true that under Explanation 3 it was made clear in the above rule that the business of a society included all matters relating to the election of office bearers. But the omission of these words from sec. 61 of the Rajasthan Act makes no difference. The dispute in the present suit is undoubtedly not a private dispute unconnected with the business of the society, but is a dispute concerning the business of the society. The word "business" as used in sec. 61 is not confined to commercial business of the society. In the result the appeal is allowed and the decision of the appellate court is set aside. The decision of the trial court dismissing the suit is restored. In the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs of this appeal. . ;