KOKJE, J. - (1.) BY the impugned order the trial court had decided two issues which were treated to be preliminary issues. Issue No. 5 related to the jurisdiction of the civil court to try the suit in view of Section 75 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act ). Issue No. 8 related to the necessity of notice under Section 143 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act. The learned trial court held that the suit was entertainable by the civil court as Section 75 of the Act does not apply to the facts of the case. It was further held that since the suit was not covered by Section 75 of the Act compliance with Section 143 of the Act was also not necessary.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. For better appre-ciation of the controversy it would be necessary to reproduce Section 75 and Section 143 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. The Sections are reproduced below: " Section 75: Dispute which may be referred to arbitration:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in for-ce, if any dispute touching the constitution, management, or the business of a co-operative society; (a) among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members, or (b) between a member, past member or person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the society, its committee or any officer, agent or employee of the society, or (c) between the society or its committee and any past committee, any officer, agent or employee, or any past officer, past agent or past employee or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any decea-sed officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the society, or (d) between the society and any other co-operative society, or (e) between the society and the surety of a member, past member or a deceased member, or a person other than a member who has been granted a loan by the society or with whom the society has or had transaction under Section 66, whether such a surety is or is not a member of a society, such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of such dispute. (2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the following shall be deemed to be disputes touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, namely:- (a) a claim by the society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not; (b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor where the society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor as a result of the default of the principal debtor, whether such debt or demand is admitted or not, (c) any dispute arising in connection with the election of any office of the society. (3) If any question arises whether a dispute referred to the Registrar under this section is a dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, the decision thereon of the Registrar shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court. " " Section 143: Notice necessary in suits-No suit shall be instituted against a co-operative society or any of its officers in respect of any act touching the constitution, management or the business of the society until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to the Registrar, or left at his office, stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left. " It would be seen that the only common feature between the two provisio-ns is relating to the subject matter of the dispute. If the subject matter of the dispute touches the constitution, management or business of a Co-operative Society, notice under Section 143 is necessary if a suit is to be filed in a civil court. If a dispute touches the constitution, management or business of a co-operative society and if it arises between the parties enumerated in Clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 75 of the Act, it has to be referred to the Registrar for decision and no court has jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute. Thus two conditions are necessary for applicability of Section 75 of the Act:- (1) the subject matter of the dispute should be touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative Society and (2) that the dispute should be between the parties covered by Clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 75 of the Act. For applicability of Section 143 of the Act again, two conditions are necessary viz. (1) a suit has to be instituted against a Co-operative Society or any of its officers and (2) the suit should be in respect of any act touching the constitution, management or business of the Co-operative Society. Obviously, if a suit is to be filed that has to be beyond he scope of Section 75 of the Act. Otherwise, such a suit would be hit by the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 75 of the Act which ousts the jurisdiction of any court to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of a dispute covered by Section 75 (1) of the Act. Conversely, if a dispute falls within the scope of Section 75 of the Act, notice under Section 143 of the Act would not be necessary for the reason that if the subject matter is covered by Section 75 of the Act no suit can be filed and a reference has to be made and for making of a reference Section 143 would not apply. Section 143 of the Act would only apply if a suit has to be filed. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned trial court has held Section 75 of the Act not applicable to the dispute not because it has decided that the dispute is such which does not touch the constitution, management or bu-siness of the cooperative society. The learned trial court has held Section 75 not applicable to the case only because the plaintiff was third party who had taken contract for transportation from the cooperative society and was not covered by any of the Clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 75 of the Act. In fact, there is no decision given by the learned trial court on the question as to whether the dis-pute touches the constitution, management or business of the cooperative society. After holding that the dispute was not between parties mentioned in Section 75 of the Act and therefore Section 75 of the Act was not applicable, the court straightway came to the conclusion,as a necessary corollary, that Section 143 of the Act would also not apply. The trial court has therefore committed a material irregularity in ex-ercise of its jurisdiction in deciding the preliminary issue No. 8. The revision petition is therefore partly allowed. The decision on issue No. 5 is maintained but decision on issue No. 8 is set aside. It is directed that the trial court shall decide the issue again after hearing the parties clearly giving the finding on the point as to whether the subject matter of the dispute touches the constitu-tion, management or business of the cooperative society or not.
(3.) MR. Dinesh Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the dispute being clearly touching the business of the cooperative society, the suit should be straightway dismissed for want of notice under Section 143 of the Act. It is not necessary for this Court to decide the controversy here at this stage. As a re-sult of the decision on issue No. 8 the trial court shall pass consequential order as to the tenability of the suit. .;