Short Note : 1. The defendant-applicant denied the claim of the plaintiff and inier alia raised the objection that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provision; of section 64 (1) read with section 82 (1) (c) of the Act. 2. The learned Judge of the trial Court has held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Hence revision before the High Court. 3. Held: In order to attract the provisions of section 82 (1) (c), it is necessary to show that the suit involves any dispute required to be referred under the Act to the Registrar or to his nominee. Such a dispute must have the following two characteristics:- (a) that the dispute touches the business of the defendant society, and (b) that the person with whom there is a dispute with society has or had business transactions with the society. 4. Legal connotations of the words "business and business transactions" have been stated by Hon'ble A.P. Sen, J. (as he then was) in 1971 JLJ 973 = 1971 RN 577. "A transaction in the ordinary sense of the word 'said Garth C. J., in Guddulal v. patelal (1881 ILR 6 Cal. 117)' is that some business or dealing which is carried or transacted between two or more persons". To the same effect was the definition given by Jakson, J., in the said decision "a transaction as the definition denotes is something which has been concluded between persons by cross reciprocal action as it were". 5. The word 'business' and the words 'business transactions' as used in section 64 (1) of the Act postulate respectively an act and series of acts which is/are bilateral or multi-lateral in character and is/are voluntary in origin. If there is merely an unilateral action which results into compulsory sales as in case of sales by virtue of the Order, such a sale cannot fall within the ambit of the phrase "business of the society" or the words "business transactions" as envisaged by section 64 (1) of the Act. As provided in Clause 3 of the Order, the sale of wheat by the licensed dealer is not an out-come of any voluntary act or transaction bilateral or multilateral in character, but it is of unilateral character only. It is the vigor of the order which results into sale. As provided in Clause 3 of the Order, the sale of wheat by the licensed dealer is not an out-come of any voluntary act or transaction bilateral or multilateral in character, but it is of unilateral character only. It is the vigor of the order which results into sale. Shortly put, the Order provides for compulsory sale by the licensed dealer or in other words for compulsory procurement of the wheat. In cases of such sales, there is absence of the following three elements which are essential traits of voluntary sales classifiable as 'business or business transactions' for purposes of the Act :- (a) volition to sell. (b) right to fix price, and (c) right to decide how and when to effect delivery of the goods. 6. The dispute in the instant case pertains to supply of wheat in accordance with clause 3 of the Order. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as a dispute which is required to he referred to the Registrar or his nominee under the Act. Revision dismissed.