JUDGMENT This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the Morena Mandal Sahkari Shakkar Karkhana, Kailaras. This arises out of following facts : The petitioner is a co-operative society registered under the provisions of M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The respondent No. 1 was its employee. He was given promotion but this promotion order was withdrawn. The case of the respondent No. 1 is that he did join the duties against the promoted post for one day. He challenged the order by which the promotion was withdrawn in a Civil Court. The Civil Court granted injunction. The petitioner society challenged that order in the appellate Court but the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Shri R.D. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Courts-below had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute in question. According to him, the dispute is barred on account of the provisions of section 55 of the aforementioned Act. He has placed reliance on (1989) 3 SCC 552 . He also relies on the decision given in M.P. No. 345/88. The counsel for respondent No. 1 has contended that the appropriate course for the petitioner was to see that a preliminary issue as to the maintainability of the suit is framed and it is only thereafter the question as to whether civil suit is competent or not could be adjudicated upon. The petitioner is relying upon the statutory provisions contained in the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. In M.P. No. 345/1988 decided on 4th April, 1991, it was held that :-- "In the result, the petition is allowed. The orders (Annexure P/1 and P/2) passed respectively by the revisional Court and the Civil Judge, Class I, Sabalgarh, holding that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit, are quashed. As prayed by Shri Upadhyaya, respondent No. 1/Plaintiff is permitted to withdraw the suit, which shall be done within one month." The above decision pertains to the same society which figures as petitioner in this case. The jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred by statutory provisions. The contention of the petitioner is well merited and deserves to be accepted. Reliance has rightly been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on a Division Bench decision of this Court. The jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred by statutory provisions. The contention of the petitioner is well merited and deserves to be accepted. Reliance has rightly been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on a Division Bench decision of this Court. There was definite error of jurisdiction in the matter of entertaining the dispute. This petition is allowed. The interim order passed by the Courts-below arc vacated. The security, if paid, be refunded.