JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE only question involved in this petition is whether an election dispute referred to the Registrar for a decision under section 64 of the m. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is not maintainable without a prior notice in writing to the Registrar in accordance with section 94 of that Act. ( 2. ) THE petitioner raised an election dispute falling within the ambit of section 64 (2) (iv) of the Act against the election of respondent No. 2 Gopi-krishna which was referred to the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, indore Division for a decision under section 64 of the Act. The respondent no. 2 raised a preliminary objection that there being admittedly no prior notice to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies in accordance with section 94 of the act, the Deputy Registrar, Respondent No. 1, had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide that dispute. This objection was sustained by the Deputy Registrar, respondent No. 1, by the impugned order dated 3-6-1975 (Annexure- VI) and the reference was rejected on this ground alone. Hence this petition to quash the impugned order dated 3-6-1975 (Annexure- VI ). ( 3. ) THE Act provides for appeals in accordance with section 77 therein, the final appeal being to the State Government which has delegated the its power to the Board of Revenue. However, the Board of Revenue in an earlier decision reported in Bajrang Rice Mills v. M. P. State Co-operative Marketing federation and another, 1974 R N 290. has taken the view that a prior notice under section 94 of the Act is necessary before such a dispute under section 64 of the Act can be entertained by the Registrar. The impugned order is based on this decision of the Board of Revenue. It is for this reason that the petitioner has directly come to this Court instead of taking recourse to the remedy of an appeal under section 77 of the Act. Since the question involved relates to the jurisdiction of the tribunal and the view of the Board of Revenue, which is the final Court of appeal under the Act, has already been expressed in an earlier decision, we are of the opinion that there is no impediment as a result of the remedy of appeal not being exhausted. We shall now consider the question on merits. ( 4. We shall now consider the question on merits. ( 4. ) SECTION 94 of the Act is as under:- "94. Notice necessary in Suits.- No suit shall be instituted against the society or any of its officers in respect of any act touching the constitution, management or 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. " This prevision is similar to section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. It requires that before a suit is filed against a society or any of its officers in respect of the acts specified therein, a prior notice in writing of two months duration must be given to the Registrar stating the specified particulars of the claim. The question is whether such a notice is necessary even for the entertainment of a dispute falling within the ambit of sub-section (2) of section 64 of the Act and referred to the Registrar for adjudication as provided in that section. The board of Revenue in Bajrang Rice Mills case {supra) has taken the view that a notice under section 94 of the Act is necessary even in case of reference made to the Registrar under section 64 of the Act. The reasoning of the Board is that the word "suit" occurring in section 94 is wide enough to include any proceeding such as reference to the Registrar under section 64 of the Act. Reliance has been placed by the Board on Form H to the M. P. Co-operative Societies rules which describes the parties to the reference as plaintiff and defendant. ( 5. ) SECTION 64 of the Act covers the specified dispute relating to specified matters and between the parties specified there in. Such disputes have to be referred to the Registrar for adjudication. Section 66 of the Act provides for adjudication of such dispute under section 64 of the Act on a reference made to the Registrar? either by the Registrar himself or by his nominee. These provisions are contained in Chapter VII which relates to Disputes and Arbitration. Chapter XI under the heading miscellaneous includes section 94. Section 66 of the Act provides for adjudication of such dispute under section 64 of the Act on a reference made to the Registrar? either by the Registrar himself or by his nominee. These provisions are contained in Chapter VII which relates to Disputes and Arbitration. Chapter XI under the heading miscellaneous includes section 94. In the same chapter occurs section 82 which bars the jurisdiction of Civil or Revenue Courts in respect of matters specified in sub-section (1) thereto wherein clause (c) is with respect to any dispute required to be referred to the Registrar etc. Thus, the scheme of these provisions shows that a civil suit lies only in respect of matters not excluded from the jurisdiction of a civil Court by virtue of section 82 (1) of the Act. Instances of civil suits which lie against a Society not being excluded from the jurisdiction of the Courts, are admitted. It is therefore, clear that civil suit can be filed against a society or any of its officers not withstanding the exclusion of civil Courts jurisdiction in the manner provided, in certain eventualities. Thus the provision in section 94 of the Act is, workable on the view that the same does not apply to a reference made to the Registrar under section 64 of the Act. ( 6. ) THE word used in section 94 of the Act is "suit" which ordinarily means a civil suit. (See Farkundali Nanhay v. V. B. Potdar and another, s2 The question is whether the word "suit" should even then be construed to include a reference to the Registrar under section 64 of the Act. In our opinion, it is not necessary to do so. The notice required by section 94 of the Act is to be given to the Registrar, Ordinarily, there should be no occasion to require a prior notice to the Registrar when the reference under section 64 of the Act has to be decided by the Registrar himself. In our opinion, it is not necessary to do so. The notice required by section 94 of the Act is to be given to the Registrar, Ordinarily, there should be no occasion to require a prior notice to the Registrar when the reference under section 64 of the Act has to be decided by the Registrar himself. Such a notice has meaning where the authority to decide is not the Registrar but a civil Court since the Registrar has supervisory powers over the Society and with a prior notice being given to the Registrar, it may be possible for the Registrar in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction to ensure that a rightful claim is settled and is not required to be taken needlessly to a civil Court entailing avoidable expenditure of the Society. Apparently, it is with this object in view that section 94 of the Act has been enacted. As already stated, a prior notice to the Registrar is meaningless where reference of a dispute under section 64 of the Act has to be decided by the registrar himself. ( 7. ) WE are, therefore of the opinion that section 94 of the Act does not apply to a reference made under section 64 of the Act to the Registrar for adjudication of a dispute mentioned therein. ( 8. ) CONSEQUENTLY, this petition succeeds and is here by allowed with costs. The impugned order dated 3-6-1975 (Annexure- VI) is quashed. The reference shall not be decided on merits in accordance with law. Counsels fee Rs. 50 (Rupees fifty), if certified. The outstanding amount of security deposit be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.