Short Note : 1. In a suit for recovery of balance of price of Cloth supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant, objection was raised by the defendant that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as it was barred by section 82, read with section 64 of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Held : Learned counsel for the plaintiff-applicant contended before me that a dispute between a Society and a non-member does not fall under section 64 of the Act and cannot be decided by the Registrar. Learned counsel, in this connection, referred to sub-section (2) of section 64. 2. Sub-section (2) of section 64 opens with the words -"for the purpose of sub-section (1), a dispute shall include." The sub-section then contains five clauses describing the disputes. The dispute raised by the plaintiff in the present suit, no doubt, does not fall under any of the clauses of sub-section (2) of section 64, but on a proper construction of the sub-section it cannot be held to be exhaustive. When sub-section (2) says that a dispute shall include the disputes referred to in the five clauses contained in that sub-section it does not mean that the description of the disputes contained in the five clauses is exhaustive. Sub-section (2) does not exclude other disputes which can fall within sub-section (1) on its proper construction. Sub-section (1) of section 64 in clear terms provides that any dispute touching the business of a society shall be referred to the Registrar by any of the parties to the dispute if the parties to the dispute are the society and a person other than a member of the society who has been granted a loan by the society or with whom the society has or had business transactions and any person claiming through such a person". This provision, which is contained in clause (c) of sub-section (1), will become nugatory if the disputes referred to in sub-section (2) are held to be exhaustive of the nature of disputes which may be referred to the Registrar under sub-section (1). The Supreme Court ruling of S.S. Works v. Asstt. Registrar, Cooperative Societies relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant relates to Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1935, the language of which was different. The Supreme Court ruling of S.S. Works v. Asstt. Registrar, Cooperative Societies relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant relates to Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1935, the language of which was different. Indeed, the matter is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Keshawa Narayan v. Mandal Co-operative Marketing Society 1970 JLJ SN 3. This case directly deals with section 64 of the Madhya Pradesh Act. The meaning of section 64, as explained by me earlier is fully borne out by this ruling. Revision dismissed.