Short Note : 1. This revision at the instance of the defendant is directed against the order made by the Additional Civil Judge, Class I. Durg holding that the subject matter of dispute in the suit is not covered by section 82 (1) (c) of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") inasmuch as it was not a dispute required to be, referred to the Registrar under section 64 (1), (c) or (e) of the Act. Held: As regards the first contention, it would suffice to observe that in view of the undisputed position emerging from the pleadings of the parties, it was not the business of the plaintiff society to construct or acquire houses and let them out. From the mere fact that the plaintiff society owned the building and let out a part of the same which it did not require for its own purpose, it cannot be said that the letting out of a part of the building was a part of the business of the society. This legal position stands concluded by the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court as reported in Deccan Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Dalichand Jugraj Jain and others ( AIR 1969 SC 1320 ). 2. The second contention raised on behalf of the, applicant is based on the construction of the word' touching". It is true that the word "touching" is of wide connotation and would include any matter which relates to or concerns the business of a society, but in my opinion, the definition of the said word cannot be made so wide as suggested by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant. Once the transaction (If letting out a portion of the building is held not to be the business of the plaintiff society, the dispute relating to the claim of eviction cannot be treated as dispute touching the business of the plaintiff society. Similarly, there is no scope to contend that the dispute in question was touching the business of the defendant society. The lease was not of the business carried on by the defendant society. What was let out was the accommodation belonged to the plaintiff Society. 3. Similarly, there is no scope to contend that the dispute in question was touching the business of the defendant society. The lease was not of the business carried on by the defendant society. What was let out was the accommodation belonged to the plaintiff Society. 3. While dealing with a similar problem, a Division of this Court observed in para 10 of its judgment reported in Ramsingh v. Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies and another, 1973 JLJ 255 =1973 RN 115. 4. It is true that under sub-section (3) of section 64 of the Act, the Registrar is competent to decide whether the dispute falls within the purview of section 64 of the Act and such decision cannot be called into question in any Court. But It is provision is no bar to the exercise of the jurisdiction of a civil Court for considering and determining the question of its own jurisdiction, if such an objection is raised. The language of sub-section (3) of section 64, makes it clear that the provisions of the same apply to a case where a dispute has been referred to the Registrar. 4. Revision dismissed.