P. D. MULYE, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to decide the question of jurisdiction either of the Civil Court or the Registrar of Co-operative societies in respect of the dispute or the claim of the petitioner. ( 2 ) FACTS giving rise to this petition may be stated thus : The respondent no. 1, the Ratlam Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. , Ratlam appointed the pelitioner on 1-5-58 and promoted him to the post of Sub-Accountant with effect from 1-10-60 as per Annexure-1. Though the petitioner was a permanent employee he was removed from service by respondent No. 1 by an order of dismissal dated 16-2-61 Annexure-2. Before this order, a charge sheet was given to the petitioner to which he replied but he was not supplied with the copy of the enquiry report nor was he given personal hearing before the Managing Committee to put up the case of the petitioner. Further according to him the charges levelled against the petitioner were wrong no procedure was followed nor principles of natural justice were adhered to. Therefore, according to the petitioner the order of dismissal is illegal and void. ( 3 ) AT the time when the order of dismissal was passed the M. B. Cooperative societies Act, 1955 was in force and according to Section 67 of that Act it is provided that if any dispute touching the Constitution or the business of the Society (other than dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the Society or its committee against the paid servants of the society) arises such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision. Thus, the dispute regarding disciplinary action was not covered under section 67 and the Registrar or his subordinates had no jurisdiction to entertain any claim or dispute and further that they had no jurisdiction to consider the dispute regarding the disciplinary action. ( 4 ) THE petitioner, therefore, filed a Civil Suit on 9-3-62 in the Court of Civil Judge, Class II, Ratlam challenging the dismissal order. The said C. S. No. 26-A of 1962 was decided in favour of the plaintiff on 7-11-63 as per Annexure-3. The respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the addl. ( 4 ) THE petitioner, therefore, filed a Civil Suit on 9-3-62 in the Court of Civil Judge, Class II, Ratlam challenging the dismissal order. The said C. S. No. 26-A of 1962 was decided in favour of the plaintiff on 7-11-63 as per Annexure-3. The respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the addl. District Judge, Ratlam, who allowed the same on 4-8-65 against which the petitioner filed S. A. No. 534 of 1965 in this Court which was allowed on 21-4-76 (Annexure-4) and the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below was set aside and the case was remanded to the trial Court for their decision in accordance with law. ( 5 ) AFTER the case was remanded, the respondent No. 1 raised an objection regarding the jurisdiction of the trial Court to try the case by way of an amendment which was allowed and maintained by the High court also in Civil Rev. No. 184 of 1977. The said objection regarding jurisdiction of the Civil Court was upheld in favour of respondent No. 1 by the impugned order dated 7-2-78, Annexure-5, by which it was held that the Jurisdiction is with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. ( 6 ) IN compliance of the order dated 7-2-78 (Annexure-5) the petitioner filed the same plaint before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 23-2-78 which was registered as case No. 55/34 of 1978. It was heard by respondent No. 3, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bhopal and in that proceeding before the said Joint Registrar, the respondent No. 1 again raised an objection that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies also has no jurisdiction to try the matter. The respondent No. 3 by the impugned order dated 4-7-78 (Annexure-6) held that the matter in dispute can be tried and heard by Civil Court and not by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. He, therefore, ordered that the plaint be returned for presentation before the civil Court. ( 7 ) IN compliance of this order the petitioner again presented the plaint in the Civil Court which by it order passed on 17-10-78 (Annexure-7) again maintained its earlier view that Civil Court had no jurisdiction. Against the said order an appeal was filed but the same was rejected by the Addl. District Judge, Ratlam. ( 7 ) IN compliance of this order the petitioner again presented the plaint in the Civil Court which by it order passed on 17-10-78 (Annexure-7) again maintained its earlier view that Civil Court had no jurisdiction. Against the said order an appeal was filed but the same was rejected by the Addl. District Judge, Ratlam. The petitioner filed S. A. No. 256 of 1979 in this court which was dismissed as not pressed on 18-8-83 in view of the present miscellaneous petition. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner in this petition, has, therefore, contended that the order of the Civil Court having been final that it had no jurisdiction to try the claim of the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 having not preferred any appeal against that order, was estopped from contending that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has no jurisdiction to try the dispute raised by the petitioner and consequently the Joint registrar Co-operative Societies had also no jurisdiction to go beyond the order of the Civil Court to hold otherwise that the Civil Court alone had jurisdiction to try the dispute. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner has been that the order dated 4-7-78 (Annexure-6) passed by the Joint registrar. Co-operative Societies is without jurisdiction. He further contended that the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (Act No. 17 of 1961) was brought into force from 15-5-62 and thus according to Section 55 of the said Act the dispute regarding disciplinary action was required to be referred to the Registrar or any other Officer appointed by him not below the rank of Assistant Registrar. The relevant provision of Section 55 (2) of the said Act is as follows :"there a dispute including a dispute regarding terms of employment working conditions and disciplinary action by a Society arises between a Society and its employees the Registrar or any other Officer appointed by him not below the rank of Assistant registrar shall decide the dispute and his decision shall be binding on the Society and its employees. "the petitioner, therefore, contended that there was a bar under the M. B. Co-operative Societies Act, 1955 under Section 67 (1) thereof the file a dispute regarding the disciplinary action to be taken against an employee before the authorities under the M. B. Co-operative Societies Act and it is for this reason that the suit was filed before the Civil Court on 9-3-62 when the M. B. Co-operative Societies Act was in force and the M. P. Co-operative societies Act came into force after the filing of the suit. ( 9 ) THE petitioner while seriously challenging the order of dismissal of various grounds has, therefore, contended that he is being made a shuttle cock by the respondent for all these years and the dispute is not being decided for the reasons stated above with the result that his grievance about the wrong decision of his dismissal from service is not being decided on merits. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court to exercise its extraordinary powers under the writ jurisdiction. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 frankly submitted that the stand taken by him all along has been that the Registrar of Co-operative societies alone has the jurisdiction in the matter in view of the provisions of Section 55 (2) read with Section 82 (2) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies act, 1960. He therefore submitted that what was contended before the joint Registrar was that the plaintiff filed before the Registrar Co-operative societies was barred by limitation that to save the bar of limitation the petitioner claimed the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. However, anyhow the respondent No. 3 came to the conclusion that the Regis trar Co-operative Societies had no jurisdiction to try the dispute and consequently returned the plaint to the petitioner for presentation to the civil Court. He, therefore, submitted that the view taken by respondent no. However, anyhow the respondent No. 3 came to the conclusion that the Regis trar Co-operative Societies had no jurisdiction to try the dispute and consequently returned the plaint to the petitioner for presentation to the civil Court. He, therefore, submitted that the view taken by respondent no. 3 was wrong as in view of the order of the Civil Court as also according to the provisions of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act the Registrar of Co-operative Societies alone had the jurisdiction to decide the dispute of the present type and he should have proceeded with the case according to law after deciding the question of limitation along with the application made by the petitioner claiming benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act. Us, therefore, frankly admitted that under Section 55 (2) read with Section 82 (2) of the M. P. Co-operative societies Act which came into force from 15-5-62, the Civil Court lost the jurisdiction to try the present suit and, therefore, the Civil Court acted rightly in returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court, which became final as neither party preferred any appeal or revision against it. ( 11 ) THE learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, therefore, submitted that the Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Bhopal instead of returning the plaint for presentation to the Civil Court should have proceeded to decide the question of limitation raised before him by respondent No. 1 along with the application made by the petitioner under Section 14 of the limitation Act. Further according to the learned Court, as a matter of fact when in the earlier suit the Civil Court had already decided that it had no jurisdiction, he should not have again approached the Civil Court for the very same relief. ( 12 ) I may make it clear at this stage that I am not touching the merits of the case as to whether the order of dismissal of the petitioner was correct or not or was void or illegal on any ground as the matter is yet to be decided on merits on the basis of the pleas raised by the petitioner challenging the order of dismissal. ( 13 ) THE only point involved and pressed in this petition, therefore, in which Court has the jurisdiction to decide the dispute of the present typ whether the Civil Court or the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. ( 13 ) THE only point involved and pressed in this petition, therefore, in which Court has the jurisdiction to decide the dispute of the present typ whether the Civil Court or the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Thus, after hearing the learned counsel in view of legal position I find that the registrar of Co-operative Societies alone has the jurisdiction to try the dispute of the present nature. ( 14 ) IN the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed with no order as to costs. The order dated 4-7-78 passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative societies, Bhopal in case No. 55/34 of (Annexure-6) is quashed and set aside and it is held that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has the jurisdiction to decide the dispute of the present type on merits. However, before deciding the dispute on merits he shall also consider the objection raised by respondent No. 1 whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for which the petitioner has filed an application. The amount of security deposit, if any, on verification be returned to the petitioner. The parties shall appear before the Registrar of co-operative Societies, Bhopal on 3-10-1983. Petition allowed. .