A. G. QURESHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been directed against the order passed on 6-10-1987 in C. S. No. 2-B of 1985 by the District Judge rajgarh. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to this revision, in short, are that the non-applicants nos. 1 and 2 had brought a suit against the applicant and others for recovery of the amount of loss before the District Judge, Rajgarh. A preliminary objection was raised that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and try it as the dispute is covered uader Section 64 of the m; P. Co-operative Societies Act and as such the Civil Court is barred from entertaining such a suit in accordance with Section 82 of the M. P. Co-operative societies Act. The learned District Judge, vide the impugned order, disagreeing with the objection raised by the present applicant held that a dispute between a Member of the Society and a person not a member of the society is not covered by Section 64 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act. Hence this revision petition. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant Shri Amar Singh has drawn by attention to the provisions of Section 64 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies act and has argued that the learned lower Court has erred in interpreting the provisions of Section 64 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act. According to Shri Amar Singh the learned lower Court has also failed to take into consideration the settled position of law by the Supreme Court and this Court on the point of the jurisdiction of Court in case of such disputes as the present one. ( 4 ) ON the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent Shri Yadao has stated that in view of the provisions contained in Section 64 (2) of the m. P. Co-operative Societies Act a dispute as defined in Section 64 (1) of the act has to be a dispute between the members of the Society and not an outsider. Therefore, the learned District Judge has rightly held that there is no bar to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. ( 5 ) IN my opinion this revision petition should be allowed. Therefore, the learned District Judge has rightly held that there is no bar to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. ( 5 ) IN my opinion this revision petition should be allowed. This Court in the case of S. S. Ratanchand v. The Executive Officer, Coal Niva Works central Co-operative Store Ltd. Chirimiri [c. R. No. 577 of 1975, reported in M. P. W. N. (1979) I, Note 230], has considered the scope and ambit of section 64 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act and has also considered sub-section (2) of Section 64 of the Act. After considering the various clauses of sub-section (2) of Section 64, the Court was of the view that the opening words of sub-section (2) of Section 64 are "for the purposes of subsection (1), a dispute shall include" i. e,, the matters enumerated in the five clauses of sub-section (2) of Section 64 shall include the definition of dispute. But the enumeration of the disputes in the various clauses of sub-section (2)of Section 64 is not exhaustive and as such sub-section (2) would not exclude the other disputes which can fall within sub-section (1) of Section 64. Now sub-section (1) of Section 64 in clear terms provides that any dispute touching the business of the Society shall be referred to the Registrar by any of the parties to the dispute if the parties to the dispute are the Society and a person other than a member of the Society or who has been granted a loan by the society or with whom the Society has or had business transactions and anyperson claiming through such person. As such sub-section (1) of Section 64 includes the dispute touching the business of the Society between the Members of the Society and the Society or any other person who is not a Member of the Society who has or had business transactions with the Society. While deciding this case the learned Judge has placed reliance on the case of Keshawa narayan v. Mandal Co-operative Marketing Society, [1970 JLJ, SN 3]. While deciding this case the learned Judge has placed reliance on the case of Keshawa narayan v. Mandal Co-operative Marketing Society, [1970 JLJ, SN 3]. In keshawa Narayan v. Mandal Co-operative Marketing Society and others (supra) the Supreme Court has held that the expression 'touching the business of Society' means in reference or in relation to, representing, regarding or concerning the business of the Society and if the dispute is touching the business of Society' the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain an action was barred and even it be assumed that the Registrar, Co-operative Societies is not a Court within the meaning of Order 7, Rule 10, C. P. C. the High court would still be justified in directing that the plaint presented before the civil Court should be returned to the plaintiff so that he may be entitled to present that claim before the Registrar and ask for condonation of delay, if any, in presenting the claim. In view of the aforesaid judgments it cannot be disputed that the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 64 are not exhaustive but only inclusive and, therefore, they will not have the effect of stultifying the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 64 wherein a dispute between a person other than the Member of the Society and the Society touching the business of Society has to be referred to the Registrar and consequently the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred by the provisions of section 82 of the Act. ( 6 ) A Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of M. S. Madhava Rao and others v. D. V. K. Surya Rao Member of the Pithapuram co-operative Bank, Pithapuram and others, [air 1954 Madras, 103] has construed the words 'touching the business of Society' and it has held that even when a dispute does not directly arise from the business of the Society then also if it has a reference or relation to or concern the business of the society it shall be construed to mean that such a transaction touches the business of the Society. ( 7 ) IN the instant case, undisputedly the dispute "touches the business of the Society on the plaint allegations themselves. ( 7 ) IN the instant case, undisputedly the dispute "touches the business of the Society on the plaint allegations themselves. Therefore, in my opinion, the learned lower Court has erred in holding that the dispute being not one between the member of the Society and the Society the provisions of Section 64 and consequently of Section 82 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies act are not attracted. ( 8 ) IN the result this revision petition is allowed. The order impugned is set aside. The lower Court is directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff for raising a dispute before the Registrar. However, from the averments it appears that the dispute is already pending before the Registrar, Co-operative societies. Still in view of the legal position this has to be returned to the plaintiff. In the circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .