JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. appeal has been directed against the order of iearned Additional District Judge, Abu Road dated 6.4.1999 by which he dismissed application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed on behalf of the plaintiff appellant. 2. Admitted facts are that appellant Pratap Singh is a member of Co-operative Societies which runs the respondents Bank. He obtained a loan of Rs. 50,000/-. He did pay some amount but a balance of Rs. 50,195/- was due against him. Respondents bank issued him a notice under Section 117 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1965') asking him to deposit the said sum alongwith interest accrued from 1.10.1998. Another notice dated 20.10.1998 was issued to deposit the balance money within seven days and the appellant was informed that in case he does not deposit the amount within this period, proceedings under Section 118 of the Act of 1965 will be token against him. Then a demand notice was issued on 17.11.1998. The plaintiff then filed a suit against the defendants respondents asking for an injunction for recovery of the amount. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction was also filed. 3. The case of the defendants respondents is that no such suit can be filed as they have a right to recovery the amount from the appellant. The defendants have a right and are empowered to recover the amount according to the provisions of the Act of 1965. The learned trial court was of the view that the case of the defendants has force. He was also of the view that the plaintiff appellant has no prima facie case and no balance of convenience in his favour and no irreparable loss was likely to be caused to him as he was simply to pay the amount. Therefore, it dismissed the petition. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the facts are admitted and the only submission of the plaintiff is that the defendants respondents are not competent to recover the amount as they want bypassing the civil court and, therefore, it was necessary to injunct the defendants.On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant respondents submitted that the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank has powers of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies as per Notification dated 16.2.1987 issued by the Co-operative Department. He has powers to recover the money under Sections 117 and 118 of the Act of 1965. He has further contended that since it is a matter of recovery of money and the appellant plaintiff has admitted that the amount is due, no irreparable loss will be caused to the plaintiff because the recovery of the money does not cause any irreparable loss. In substance he has prayed that revision petition should be dismissed.4-A. Section 117 of the Act of 1965 provides that Notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter IX, or any other lav/ for the time being in force, but without prejudice to any other mode of recovery provided in this Act, the Registrar or any person subordinate to him empowered by the Registrar in this behalf, may, on his own motion or on the application of a co-operative society, make an order directing the payment of any debt or outstanding demand due to the society by any member or past or deceased member, by sale of the property or any interest therein, which is subject to a charge under sub-section (1) of Section 38. The relevant provision of Section 118 of the Act of 1965 is that every order made by the Registrar on a certificate signed by him shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court and shall be executed in the same manner as a decree of such court or be executed according to law and under the rules for the time being in force for the recovery of arrears of land revenue. Thus, these provisions do empower the Registrar (Chief Executive Officer of the Bank) to recover the money from the members. 5. My attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the appellant to the Notification No. F. 4 (6) Co-op/65 dated 11.10.1995 issued by the Co-operative Department. His interpretation is that since the respondents co-operative bank has been exempted from application of Sections 117 and 118 of the Act of 1965, the only remedy before the respondents was that they should have filed suit for recovery of the money. I am afraid, this cannot be the interpretation of the notification. It relates to the recoveries against the bank. It does not apply to the recoveries to be made by the Bank. That is what has also been interpreted by the learned lower court. I am afraid, this cannot be the interpretation of the notification. It relates to the recoveries against the bank. It does not apply to the recoveries to be made by the Bank. That is what has also been interpreted by the learned lower court. I agree with the interpretation made by the learned Additional District Judge, Abu Road so far as notification is concerned. The bank has authority and power to recover the amount under the provisions of Section 117 and 118 of the Act of 1965. In view of this interpretation the plaintiff appellant has no prima-facie case. 6. Counsel for respondents has submitted that the jurisdiction of civil courts is barred as per provisions of Section 137 of the Act of 1965. Presently I am not called upon to decide about the jurisdiction, as the plaintiff appellant does not have a prima-facie case to injunct the respondents defendants bank as recovery can be made as per provisions of Sections 117 and 118 of the Co-operative Societies Act. Secondly, no irreparable loss will be caused to the plaintiff appellant as the suit involves recovery of money. Balance of convenience also does not lie in his favour. 7. To sum up, there is no force in this misc. appeal and it is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******