ORDER : This revision is directed against the impugned order dated 3-5-2000 passed by Additional District Judge, Narsinghgarh, District Rajgarh (Biaora) in Civil Original Suit No. 10-A/98, whereby rejected the objections raised by the appellant Bank about maintainability of the civil suit on the ground that the District Land Development Bank is not a registered Co-operative Society and it has been further held that the present suit is maintainable and the bar created either under Section 64 or under Section 82 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "the Act of 1960") is not applicable on the present suit. 2. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 3. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction claiming following relief therein that it be declared that the applicants/defendants are not entitled to recover Rs. 1,26,620-00 from the Respondents/plaintiffs and it be further declared that the disputed land is free from any mortgage and defendants be restrained from recovering the said amount. Plaintiff has submitted in the suit that he has neither taken any loan nor has created any mortgage as the defendants have not excavated any tube-well in his land nor he has installed pump-set and even then they are illegally recovering the aforesaid amount after auctioning plaintiff's land. 4. In the written-statement applicants/defendants No. 1 and 2 Bank denied the plaint allegations and submitted that plaintiff has applied for excavating one tube-well in his field, it was excavated by one company and the payment has been made by the Bank to the company after taking consent from the plaintiff and submersible pump-set has also been purchased and installed for which the Bank has sanctioned loan. 5. Having heard learned counsel for parties and after perusal of the relevant provisions of the Act of 1960. I am of the view that the trial Court has committed illegality in holding that the present suit is maintainable and the bar created under the provisions of the Act of 1960 is not applicable on the present suit, which has been filed against Land Development Bank which is governed by the M. P. Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Adhiniyam, 1966 (for short "the Adhiniyam of 1966"). 6. Sub-section (c-i) of Section 2 of the Act of 1960 defines word "Central Society" means a Co-operative Land Development Bank. 6. Sub-section (c-i) of Section 2 of the Act of 1960 defines word "Central Society" means a Co-operative Land Development Bank. Sub-section (hh) defines "Development Bank" which means a Co-operative Land Development Bank registered or deemed to be registered under this Act. Therefore, from the bare reading of the aforesaid definitions it is clear that the land Development Bank registered or deemed to be registered in this Act of 1960 is a Central Society. Sub-section (d) of Section 2 of the Adhiniyam of 1966 also defines, the words "Development Bank" which means a Cooperative Land Development Bank registered or deemed to be registered under the Act of 1960. Therefore, it is clear that the Co-operative Land Development Bank is a registered society under the Act of 1960 and is a Central Society. Therefore, all the provisions of the Act of 1960 are applicable on the aforesaid Bank. The Adhiniyam of 1966 is a special enactment which has been enacted to facilitate the working of Co-operative Land Development Banks in M. P. This Act only provides mode for grant of loan and its recovery. The provisions of the Adhiniyam of 1966 are not exhaustive. Adhiniyam of 1966 does not deal about disputes. Appeals and Revisions. It is a subordinate legislation for grant of loan and its recovery by Land Development Banks. Therefore, where the provisions of Adhiniyam are silent and matters are not provided in the Adhiniyam, the provisions of Act of 1960 will be applicable on the Land Development Banks and also to the sale of mortgaged properties under the Adhiniyam of 1966. Under Section 28 of the Adhiniyam, 1966 Sales Officers are appointed by the Registrar for the purpose of conducting sales under Chapter V of the Adhiniyam of 1966. Under Section 3 of the Act of 1960 Sale Officers are subordinate officers to the Registrar and shall work under his general guidance, supervision and control and if any order is passed by any of the subordinate officers of the Registrar, like Sale Officers appointed by the Registrar under the Adhiniyam of 1966, the said order is appealable and revisable in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1960. 7. The scope of revision under Section 80-A of the Act of 1960 is very wide. 7. The scope of revision under Section 80-A of the Act of 1960 is very wide. It includes examination of record of any enquiry or the proceedings by any subordinate officer or a decision of a Committee of a Society or to examine the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed and as to the regularity of the proceedings of such officer or Committee, the Registrar has power to modify, annul or reverse any decision or order or proceedings and to pass any such order thereon as he may deem fit. Therefore, from the aforesaid provisions, the orders of the Registrar under revision are very wide powers and Registrar can hear Revisions against the order passed by any of his subordinate officers like the Sale Officers appointed by the Registrar under Section 28 of the Adhiniyam of 1966. 8. Under Section 64 of the Act of 1960, dispute touching the constitution, management or business is also referable to the Registrar. Therefore, a dispute whether the loan has properly been sanctioned or not, whether property has been mortgaged, whether he has taken any loan or not and has created any mortage or whether the same is not recoverable can be challenged either in a dispute under Section 64 of the Act of 1960 or by filing objections before the Sale Officer under Section 19(1) at the time of notice or under Section 20, when any mortgaged property has been sold and thereafter in appeals and revisions. 9. Sub-clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 82 of the Act of 1960 specifically creates bar on the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. In matters relating to the dispute which required to be referred to the Registrar or his nominee or board of nominees and in such cases no Civil Court or Revenue Court shall have any jurisdiction and under sub-section (3) of Section 82 no order, decision or award made under this Act shall be questioned in any Court or any ground whatsoever. From the bare reading of Section 82 of the Act of 1960, it is clear that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in matters in which dispute can be referred to the Registrar and also in the matters in which orders have been passed by the authorities under the Act of 1960. 10. From the bare reading of Section 82 of the Act of 1960, it is clear that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in matters in which dispute can be referred to the Registrar and also in the matters in which orders have been passed by the authorities under the Act of 1960. 10. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussions and clear legal position under the law, the Civil Court is not having jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute which is referable either to the Registrar or to the Sale Officer under the provisions of the Act of 1960 or under the Adhiniyam of 1966. The learned lower Court has not considered all the aforesaid provisions of law and wrongly held that the Civil Suit is maintainable. 11. Consequently, this civil revision is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Additional District Judge, Narsingharh on 3-5-2000 in Civil Suit No. 10-A/98 is hereby set-aside and the objections filed on behalf of the petitioner regarding maintainability of the suit are allowed and the suit filed is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the Respondents either to file a dispute before the Competent Court or to file objections before Recovery Officer. If any dispute is filed that will be decided in accordance with law. If any objections are filed before the Recovery Officer, they would be considered after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Respondents and shall be decided by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law. Parties shall bear their own costs.