JUDGMENT T.R. Handa, J.—It appears that Shri Narpat Ram respondent No. 1 had obtained a certain loan from the petitioner which is a Society registered under the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Socities Act, 1968. Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 were the sureties on behalf of respondent No. 1 for repayment of that loan. Dispute having arisen between the petitioner society and the respondents with respect to the aforesaid loan, the matter was referred to the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies under Section 72 of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1968, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Registrar in terms of Section 73 of the Act referred the matter for disposal to an arbitrator. The arbitrator made an award in favour of the petitioner society and against the respondents on 15-9-1975 in terms of which the respondents were directed to pay Rs. 5,393.46 as principal and Rs. 1,297.67 as interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum besides costs amounting to Rs. 1,982/-. The arbitrator further allowed future interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum till realization of the principal amount, 2. Respondent No. 1 Narpat Ram filed his suit out of which this revision petition has arisen against the petitioner society and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 praying for issue of a declaration that the award aforesaid was void being contrary to the fundamental principles of natural justice and also being in violation of the Act and the rules made thereunder. 3. Inter alia a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner society that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the award of the arbitrator was final and could not be called in question in any civil court in view of the mandatory provisions of the Act. The trial court framed the following issue on the above plea which was tried as a preliminary issue ;— "Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit in view of the provisions of H.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1968? O.P.D." 4. Vide its impugned order dated 21-2-1979 the trial court held that the civil court had jurisdiction 4o entertain the suit and adjourned the case for evidence of the plaintiff on the remaining issues, 5. O.P.D." 4. Vide its impugned order dated 21-2-1979 the trial court held that the civil court had jurisdiction 4o entertain the suit and adjourned the case for evidence of the plaintiff on the remaining issues, 5. The petitioner now seeks to challenge the aforesaid order dated 21-2-1979 passed by the trial court holding that the suit to challenge the award was maintainable. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the various provisions of the Act in support of his plea that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit which called in question the validity of the award passed by the arbitrator in exercise of his lawful jurisdiction. Section 72 of the Act mentions the disputes which may be referred to arbitration under the Act and states that whenever such a dispute arises, the same shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and that no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of such dispute. It is not disputed on behalf of the respondents that the dispute in the instant case which had been referred to the Registrar and which was later referred for disposal to the arbitrator fell within the ambit of Section 72 of the Act, The next Section 73 provides that on receipt of a reference under Section 72, the Registrar may either (a) decide the dispute himself; or (b) transfer it for disposal to any person who has been invested by the State Government with powers in that behalf ; or (c) refer it for disposal to an arbitrator. It cannot, therefore, be said that the reference of the dispute between the parties by the Registrar to the arbitrator for disposal was not in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. Section 75 then enjoins that the award of the arbitrator or a decision by the Registrar, or the person invested with the power to decide disputes, under Section 73 shall not be liable to be called in question in any civil or revenue court. Section 75 then enjoins that the award of the arbitrator or a decision by the Registrar, or the person invested with the power to decide disputes, under Section 73 shall not be liable to be called in question in any civil or revenue court. The same bar is found in another provisions of the Act, namely, Section 92 which reads : "92, Bar of jurisdiction of courts.—(a) Save as provided in this Act, no civil or revenue court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of :— (a) * * * * (b) * * * * (c) any dispute required under Section 72 to be referred to the Registrar ; and * * * * A decision or award made under Section 73 is, however, made appealable under Section 93 of the Act. If the decision or order is made by the Registrar, the appeal lies to the State Government and if the decision or order is made by any other person, then the appeal lies to the Registrar. Where the remedy of appeal is not availed of and no appeal is preferred under Section 93, the State Government can exercise its powers of review and revision under Section 94 of the Act. It is obvious that these powers of appeal, review and revision have been conferred so that the authorities exercising such powers may interfere with the order or the award made under Section 73 when it is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder or is otherwise bad. The remedy of the aggrieved party is thus provided in the Act itself and the jurisdiction of the civil court to interfere in the matter has been specifically ousted not only under Section 75 but also under Section 92 of the Act. 7. Shri Devinder Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent frankly admitted his inability to support the impugned order which prima facie appears to be illegal. The learned Subordinate Judge appears to have been influenced by the argument advanced on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent that the arbitrator had made his award without affording the plaintiff-respondent a reasonable opportunity of being heard which was an essential requirement of law and for that reason the award was bad and the civil court could interfere in the matter. The learned Subordinate Judge appears to have been influenced by the argument advanced on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent that the arbitrator had made his award without affording the plaintiff-respondent a reasonable opportunity of being heard which was an essential requirement of law and for that reason the award was bad and the civil court could interfere in the matter. There can be no dispute with respect to the proposition that the Registrar or the arbitrator to whom the dispute is referred must afford the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard before he gives his decision or makes his award and if he fails to do so the award would be bad. The remedy in this case, however, has been provided in the Act itself and that is by way of appeal under Section 93 or by way of review or revision under Section 94 of the Act and not by a separate suit. It is for the appellate authority or the authority exercising the powers of review and revision to satisfy itself whether while making the award the concerned arbitrator had afforded the parties reasonable opportunity or not. The jurisdiction of the civil courts to deal with such matters is specifically barred. 8. For the reasons stated above I accept this revision petition, set aside the impugned order of the Subordinate Judge and held that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the respondent-plaintiff as filed in the trial court. Revision petition allowed.