V. P. KOKJE, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 1 12-1989 of the 9th Additional judge to the Court of the District Judge, Indore passed in Civil Revision No. 48/89, whereby he has held that the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit from which the revision arose because of bar of Section 64 and Section 82 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. On 12-12-89 a show cause notice was ordered to be issued to the respondents in this case, calling upon them to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted for its final hearing. Later on after reply to the show cause notice was filed, the parties agreed that the case be disposed of on hearing arguments of parties at the admission stage itself. Accordingly, the case was finally heard on 30th September, 1990. ( 2 ) SHRI K. L. Sethi the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dispute was cognisable by the Civil Courts because it was mainly a dispute between the petitioner and respondents Nos. 3 and 4, who are the chief Executive Officer, Indore Development Authority, the Collector, Indore and the Competent Authority, under the Urban Laud (Ceiling an Regulation)act, Indore. According to the learned counsel the learned Addl. Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Indore has committed a grave error of jurisdiction, which deserves to be corrected by invoking powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Shri T. N. Singh, the learned Deputy Advocate general, appearing for respondents Nos. 3 and 4, Shri V. K. Zelawat, appearing for respondent No. 2 and Shri U. N. Nimgaonkar for the other respondents opposed the petition on the ground that the matter was clearly covered by Section 64 and Section 82 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and therefore, the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction. ( 3 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel, we have come to the conclusion that the petition deserves to be dismissed. For the purpose of deciding the jurisdiction of the Court, the allegations in the plaint have to be looked into, in the plaint, it has been alleged by the petitioner-plaintiff that he was a member of defendant No. 1 Co operative Society. For the purpose of deciding the jurisdiction of the Court, the allegations in the plaint have to be looked into, in the plaint, it has been alleged by the petitioner-plaintiff that he was a member of defendant No. 1 Co operative Society. The defendant No. 1 allotted plot No. GH-178 to the plaintiff in the proposed Housing Colony, which the Society was planning to develop. It was further alleged in the plaint that the defendant No. 1 Society sent a list of allottees to the defendant no. 2, the Chief Executive Officer of the Indore Development Authority and the defendant No. 2 by its letter dated 3-12-81 confirmed the allotment as per request of the defendant No. 1. It was further alleged that defendant no. 4 the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) act, issued NOC for 100 plots but in the names of allottees of these 100 plots the petitioner-plaintiff's name was not included. According to the plaintiff this was due to a collusion between various defendants and the mames of the defendants Nos. 7 and 8 were included illegally in the list. In para no, 10 of the plaint, the details of the claim are stated by the plaintiff. The details are given as follows : - (1) Suit for cancellation of allotment and registration of plot No. 178 and plot No. 175 made in favour of defendants Nos. 7 and 8 holding them to be illegal ; (2) A declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to get allotment and registration of plot No. 178 or in the alternative of plot No. 175 ; and (3) A mandatory injunction against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and 4 directing them to register plot No. 178 or plot No. 175 in the name of the plaintiff and to give possession of the plot to the plaintiff. In the plaint, the following reliefs have been claimed : (1) Cancellation of allotment in fovour of defendants Nos. 7 and 8 of plot No. 178 and plot No. 175 respectively ; (2) Declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to registration of plot No. 178 or plot No. 175 in his favour ; (3) A mandatory injunction against defendants Nos. In the plaint, the following reliefs have been claimed : (1) Cancellation of allotment in fovour of defendants Nos. 7 and 8 of plot No. 178 and plot No. 175 respectively ; (2) Declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to registration of plot No. 178 or plot No. 175 in his favour ; (3) A mandatory injunction against defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 directing them to register plot No. 178 or plot No. 175 in favour of the plaintiff and to give possession of the plot to the plaintiff ; (4) Cost of the suit ; (5) Any other relief deemed proper by the Court. ( 4 ) FROM the aforesaid contents of the plaint, it is clear that the main relief has been sought against the defendant No. 1 Society and defendants nos. 7 and 8 in whose favour the Society has allegedly registered plot No. 178 or plot No. 175 illegally. The learned Additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Indore has held that such a suit is squarely covered by sections 64 and 82 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and has, therefore, allowed the revision application and set aside the order of the trial court in favour of the plaintiff. In para 15 of the order under challenge the learned Judge has correctly summarised the dispute and has correctly held that the dispute was mainly between the Society and its members. It is also not clear from the plaint as to how the respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were being held to be responsible for allotment of a particular plot to a particular member. The Court has rightly held that the dispute raised in the plaint was a dispute touching the constitution, management or business of the Society and has to be referred to the Registrar. Shri K. B. Sethi' contention that it was a dispute mainly about the allotment of plots by the indore Development Authority cannot be accepted against the plain language of the plaint. There is, therefore, no force in this petition, which deserves to be dismissed. ( 5 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .