(1.) THE petitioner Co-operative Society does the business of transport. The Society purchased a scooter by borrowing loan from the Punjab national Bank. The scooter obviously was not purchased for the transport business as such but was a conveyance provided for office purposes. The society committed default in payment of instalments and the Punjab National bank brought this suit for recovery of the balance due. Shri Dharampal sharma was joined as a party, he having stood surety.

(2.) THE question that arose for consideration was whether this was a dispute referable to the Registrar under section 64 of the M. P. Co-operative societies Act and, therefore barred from the cognizance of a Civil Court under section 82 (c) of the Act. The trial Court has held that the suit was not a dispute covered by section 64 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act. The society has come up in revision.

(3.) THE revision must be dismissed. The expression "dispute touching the business of a society" has been construed and explained by the Supreme court in Deccan Merchants Co-operative Band Ltd. v. M js Dulichand Jugraj Jain and others, AIR 1969 SC 1320 [LQ/SC/1968/253] . in the following words : (para. 18):

"the question arises whether the dispute touching the assets of a society would be a dispute touching the business of a society. This would depend on the nature of the society and the rules and bye-laws governing it. Ordinarily, if a society owns buildings and lets out parts of buildings which it does not require for its own purpose it cannot be said that letting out of those parts is a part of the business of the Society. But it may be that it is the business of a Society to construct and buy houses and let them out to its members. In that case letting out property may be part of its business. In this case, the society is a co-operative bank and ordinarily a co-operative bank cannot be said to be engaged in business when it lets out properties owned by it. Therefore, it seems to us that the present dispute between a tenant and a member of the bank in a building which has subsequently been acquired by the Bank cannot be said to be a dispute touching the business of the bank, and the appeal should fail on this short ground. "

(Para. 22):

"while we agree that the nature of business which a Society does can be ascertained from the objects of the society, it is difficult to subscribe to the proposition that whatever the society does or is necessarily required to do for the purpose of carrying out its objects can be said to be part of its business. We, however, agree that the word "touching" is very wide and would include any matter which relates to or concerns the business of a society, but we are doubtful whether the word "affects" should also be used in defining the scope of the word "touching". "

See also : Ram Singh v. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies and another, 1973 MPLJ 295.

(4.) DISPUTE relating to purchase of furniture or taking a house on rent to establish an office would not be a dispute touching the business of a Society, which in the present case is transport. A scooter purchased for the office is an item of that type and the dispute is not covered by section 64 of the Act.

(5.) THE revision must fail on quite another ground. Shri Dharampal sharma, the surety, is not amongst the parties enunciated in section 64. Had he been a surety for a member who had been granted loan by a society, he could be a party to the dispute under clause (d) of section 64 (1). But here the society is a debtor and Sharma is a third person standing surety for the society. Section 64 (1) does not cover such a surety by any of the clauses (a) to (f). A suit against him could not go to the Registrar. Civil Court alone had jurisdiction.

(6.) THE revision must fail and is hereby dismissed. Costs on the petitioner. Counsels fee as per schedule or certificate, whichever is less. Revision dismissed.