JUDGMENT Chandra Prakash, J. This is a second appeal against the order dated April 18, 1989 of Sri M.N. Siddiqi, Additional Civil Judge, Sultanpur holding that the civil court had no jurisdiction in the case and dismissing the appeal after confirming the decree of the trial court. There was an amalgamated society known as Sahkari Samiti Limited, Jamo. This Society came into existence after the amalgamation of three societies, namely. The Sahkari Samities of Babupur, AlipurRampur and Jamo. The plaintiff was the treasurer of the former Sahkari Samiti, Jamo and he continued to be treasurer of the amalgamated society. The plaintiff is alleged to have embezzled an amount of Rs. 9,075.75. There was a dispute between the plaintiff on the one hand and the amalgamated society on the other, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 70 of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 it was referred to arbitration. The Arbitrator decided against the plaintiffappellant. The plaintiff then filed suit giving rise to the second appeal for a declaration that the defendants 2 to 7 were not valid members of the amalgamated society and they had no right to refer the dispute to arbitratioin. He further wanted an injunction restraining the defendants from obtaining any Award. Defendants resisted the claim on the ground that the amalgamated society had been properly constituted and its office bearers were also validly and legally elected and the reference to the arbitration was made according to law. It was also alleged that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and the suit was barred by Section 111 of the Cooperative Societies Act. The learned Munsif framed 8 issues in the case and alter nearing the parties came to the conclusion that he had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On the merits he gave the finding in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the plaintiff's suit. The defendantsrespondents filed appeal in the court below and after hearing the parties the court below came to the conclusion that the civil court had no jurisdiction. The plaintiffs suit was accordingly dismissed. Plaintiff has now come up in second appeal before me. I have gone through the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant alone and the learned counsel for the respondent did not turn up. The plaintiffs suit was accordingly dismissed. Plaintiff has now come up in second appeal before me. I have gone through the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant alone and the learned counsel for the respondent did not turn up. After giving the matter my thoughtful consideration I have come to the conclusion that this must fail. Section 111 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act is as follows: "Save as expressly provided in this Act, no civil or revenue court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of (a) the registration of a Cooperative Society or its byelaws or of an amendment of a byelaw; (b) the supersession or suspension of a committee of management; (c) any dispute required under Section 70 to be referred to the Registrar; and (d) any other order or award made under this Act." The above section bars the jurisdiction of the civil court in any dispute which has been referred to the arbitration under Section 70. Section 70 of the above said Act is as follows: "70(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute relating to the Constitution, management or the business of a cooperative society other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken against a paid servant of a society arises (a) among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members, or (b) between a member, past member or any person claiming through "a member, past member or deceased member, and the society, its committee of management or any officer, agent or employee of the society, including any past officer agent or employee, or (c) between the society or its committee and any past committee, iny officer, agent or employee or any past officer, past agent or past employee or the nominee, heir or legal representative of any deceased officer, deceased agent, or deceased employee of the society, or (d) between a cooperative society and any other cooperative society or societies, such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for action in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules and no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of any such dispute. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) the following shall be deemed to be included in the disputes relating to the constitution, management or the business of a cooperative society, namely (a) claims for amounts due when a demand for payment is made either refused or not complied with whether such claims are admitted or not by the opposite party; (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) a claim by a society for any loss caused to it by a member, officer, agent, or employee including past or deceased member, officer, agent or employee, whether individually or collectively and whether such loss be admitted or not; and (d) all matters relating to the objects of the society mentioned in the byelaws as also those relating to the election of officebearers. (3) If any question arises whether a dispute referred to the Registrar under this section is a dispute relating to the constitution, management or the business of a cooperative society, the decision thereon of the Registrar shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court." The plaintiff admittedly was a treasurer of the amalgamated society known as Sahkari Samiti Limited, Jamo and others. He was, therefore, an officer of an employee of the society. The dispute between him on the one hand and the amalgamated society on the other hand to be referred to the Registrar in accordance with the provisions of that Act. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the society itself was not validly amalgamated. The fact remains that the plaintiff has been working as a treasurer of the society and he himself cannot be allowed to swallow the society simply on the allegation that it was not validly constituted. If the society was not validly constituted it was open to repudiate constitution at the very beginning and to leave it altogether. It was next contended that even proceedings before the arbitration have not taken place according to law. If the society was not validly constituted it was open to repudiate constitution at the very beginning and to leave it altogether. It was next contended that even proceedings before the arbitration have not taken place according to law. If there have been any irregularity during the arbitration proceedings the appellant should point out those irregularities before the arbitrator himself and to seek redress according to law. Even the award is not open to question in appeal the court below was perfectly right in holding that the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction. The result therefore is that the appeal fails and is dismissed. Since the learned counsel for the respondent was not present I make no order as to costs. The learned counsel for the respondents turn (sic) up just after the above order was declared.