JUDGMENT The submission of learned counsel for applicants is that respondent No. I-plaintiff has filed a suit for perpetual injunction against applicants-defendants No.1 and 2 that they be restrained not to encroach upon the respondent-plaintiff's land. In the suit the applicants/defendants No. 1 and 2 raised an objection under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the Civil Court is not having jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit and thus the suit is not maintainable. It was further submitted that the respondent-plaintiff can file a dispute under section 64 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act of 1960') and under section 82 of the Act of 1960 the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. The trial Court rejected the aforesaid application and objections on the ground that a matter of encroachment over the plot of a member by another plot holder as well as the prayer of grant of perpetual injunction does not fall within the purview of the provisions of section 64 of the Act of 1960. The trial Court has also held that the decision cited by the applicants is not applicable on the facts of the present case. Thus, the trial Court rejected the aforesaid objections, against which the applicants-defendants No.1 and 2 have preferred this revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for applicants on the question of admission of this revision. Learned counsel for the applicants could not satisfy me as to how the· provisions of section 66 read with section 82 of the Act of 1960 would be applicable in such a suit for injunction against encroachment. A suit for perpetual injunction is maintainable under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure against another plot holder in a Society and such a suit cannot be treated to be hit by the provisions of sections 64 and 82 of the Act of 1960. A suit for perpetual injunction is maintainable under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure against another plot holder in a Society and such a suit cannot be treated to be hit by the provisions of sections 64 and 82 of the Act of 1960. Admittedly this suit is not between the applicants and the Society directly but suit is between the two plot holders and the provisions of section 64 of the Act of 1960 would not be attracted in a case of a suit between the two plot holders because such a suit is neither the suit between the parties as enumerated under section 64 of the Act of 1960 and there is also no dispute between the parties relating to the dispute touching the constitution, management or business of a Society or the liquidation of the Society. For a dispute under section 64 of the Act of 1960 it is a condition precedent that the dispute must be between the parties as defined under section 64 of the Act of 1960 and the same must be a dispute touching the constitution, management or business of a Society. The conditions specified in sub-clause (l) of section 64 of the Act of 1960 must be fulfilled before any matter may be called a dispute. A dispute between the two plot holders of the Society about encroachment cannot be treated a dispute with Society relating to touching the constitution, management or business of a Society. The Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Pahad Singh v. Smt. Rajkumari Dubey and another reported in 1996 Revenue Nirnaya 104, has already held that a dispute regarding boundary line between two plot holders is a suit of civil nature and such suit cannot be tried by Registrar as a dispute under section 64 and under section 82 of the Act of 1960. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be treated as excluded. A civil suit between plot holders of Society is not a dispute against the Society or any of its officers. Therefore, the same does not fall within the purview of Section 64 of the Act of 1960. The facts of this case, as submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants, is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. A civil suit between plot holders of Society is not a dispute against the Society or any of its officers. Therefore, the same does not fall within the purview of Section 64 of the Act of 1960. The facts of this case, as submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants, is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. Obviously the applicants are not having any dispute with the Society but the suit has been filed by Maheshwari Nagar Sath Public Religious Trust against the applicants who are also one of the plot holder. Therefore, it cannot be said that in such a suit civil Court is not having jurisdiction but the matter would be governed by section 64 of the Act of 1960 and the jurisdiction of the civil Court shall be treated as barred under section 82 of the Act of 1960. The jurisdiction of the civil Court under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure would only be barred when precisely there shall be a dispute between the parties touching to the constitution, management and business of the Society under section 64 of the Act of 1960. Thus, a suit for permanent injunction by one member against another member relating to the injunction about encroachment shall only be maintainable before the civil Court. In view of this clear position under the law, I do not see any illegality or prima facie error of jurisdiction committed by the trial Court while passing the impugned order. Accordingly, this revision has no merits and is dismissed summarily without notice to the other side.