K. N. SHUKLA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 12-11-1976 passed by learned First Additional District Judge, Bilaspur holding that the suit was not maintainable before a Civil Court in view of Sections 64 and 82 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act. The Court below has directed that the plaint be returned for presentation to proper Court. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT had opened a savings account in the Bilaspur Co-operative central Bank Limited (defendant No. 1 ). A sum of Rs. 20,000/-was in deposit in her account. However she found that under forged cheques rs. 11,300/- were withdrawn on 13-3-1973 and Rs. 9,000/- on 8-10-1983 plaintiff claimed that she had never issued those cheques and the bank and its employees (defendants No, 2 to 7) were bound to show credit of the sum in her bank account. She sought a declaration to that effect. ( 3 ) DEFENDANT resisted the suit oft various grounds, Preliminary issue, were framed by the Court below about jurisdiction and court-fees. The Court held that under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act only the registrar had jurisdiction to entertain the claim set up by the plaintiff and civil court was not -competent to do so. The court also held that the suit was not properly valued and sufficient court-fees was not paid, ( 4 ) ON the question of jurisdiction it was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act do not bar a suit by a depositor particularly when a charge of forgery is levelled against the employees. Alternatively, it was urged that even if the suit was assumed to be barred against the society (defendant No. 1) if was maintainable against its employees i. e. defendants No. 2 to 7. ( 5 ) SECTION 32 (c) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 bars the, jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of any dispute required to be referred to the Registrar or his nominee or Board of nominees, Section 64 lays down that any dispute touching the constitution, ' management or business of a society shall be referred to the Registrar by any of the parties to the dispute. The parties have been enumerated under clauses (a) to (f ) of Section 64 (1) of the Act. The parties have been enumerated under clauses (a) to (f ) of Section 64 (1) of the Act. ( 6 ) CLAUSE (c) of Section 64 (1) refers Jo the parties mentioned in sub section (1 ). It may be reproduced : (c) A person other than a member of the society who has been granted a loan by the society or with who the society has or had business transaction and any person claiming through such a person. " it is manifest that plaintiff is covered by the description of a party under clause (c) of Section 64 (1) because she is a person other than the member of the society with who the society has business transactions which include banking facilities. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contended that the bar under section 82 read with Section 64 of the Act will apply only in respect of the society and not in respect of its officers. This interpretation is contrary to the language used in Section 64 particularly clause (a) of sub-section (1 ). Registrar has jurisdiction to decide a dispute between a person and an officer of servant of the society besides the society itself. ( 8 ) SUPREME Cdurt in Keshav Narayan v. Mandal Co-operative Marketing society and others [1970 M. P. L. J, 770] observed that a civil suit was not maintainable for recovery of price of goods etc. supplied by a person to the society because of the her contained under Sections 82 and "64 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act. In Nayagarh Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. v. Narayan Rath and others [a. I. R. 1975 S. C. 1995], it was held that even a dispute against the officer of the Co-operative Society could be lodged only before the Registrar. The Court was considering Section 68 of the Orissa Co-operative societies could be lodged Only before the Registrar. The court was considering Section 68 of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act which is analogous to Section 64 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act. ( 9 ) I hold, therefore, that the court below was right in holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The order returning the plaint for presentation before the proper Court was proper. It is not necessary to decide the question of court-fees. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. ( 9 ) I hold, therefore, that the court below was right in holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The order returning the plaint for presentation before the proper Court was proper. It is not necessary to decide the question of court-fees. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There mill be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. .