ORDER.- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiff in S.C.S. No. 105 of 1963 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai, against the order of the learned Judge holding that the suit is not maintainable in the civil Court by virtue of section 73(1)(b) of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, and, therefore, directing the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the proper Tribunal constituted under the said Act. The suit of the plaintiff was brought against the co-operative society for recovery of a loan advanced by the plaintiff to the Society and of certain other amounts, deposited by him with the society when he was a member. The plaintiff resigned his membership on 29th August, 1962. The loan was made by him to the society, while he was a member, and so also the deposits. The defendant society pleaded the bar of section 73(1)(b) which, in so far as is material, runs thus: “73. (1) If any dispute touching the constitution of the committee or the management or the business of a registered society (other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the society or its committee against a paid servant of the society) arises- (a) ........................................ (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 servant of the society or (c) ........................................ (d) ......................................; such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision.” The learned Subordinate Judge, in passing the order under revision, followed a Bench decision of this Court in Co-operative Insurance Society v. Bapiraju1, That decision clearly shows that the claim in question will be a dispute touching the business of the co-operative society between the past member and the society and will directly fall under section 73(1)(b). The decision follows an earlier Full Bench decision of this Court in Madhava Rao v. Surya Rao1. Mr. R. Shanmugham, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, relies on a decision of King, J., in Narayana Aiyar v. The Co-operative Urban Bank, Ltd., Tinnevelly2. That decision is clearly distinguishable. There the dispute was between the Co-operative Urban Bank, Ltd., and some if its past directors regarding the loss sustained by the Bank owing to their negligence in sanctioning certain loans. That decision is clearly distinguishable. There the dispute was between the Co-operative Urban Bank, Ltd., and some if its past directors regarding the loss sustained by the Bank owing to their negligence in sanctioning certain loans. The question was whether under the provisions of section 51 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act of 1932 as it then stood, the dispute was cognizable solely by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. It was held by King, J., that under the provisions of the Act as it then stood, the dispute would not be cognizable by the Deputy Registrar. Section 51(b) of the Act was in terms similar to section 73(1)(b) of the present Act: but that would not apply, because the dispute was about an action as director and not as a member. Clause (c) of section 51(1) of the Act of 1932 as it then stood related only to disputes between the society or its committee and any officer or agent or servant of the society. The Act was amended by Act V of 1937 to include a dispute between the society and a past director as well. The present case clearly comes under section 73(1)(b) of the Act of 1961. The petition is accordingly dismissed. R.M. ----- Petition dismissed.