JUDGMENT Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - The appellant filed suit challenging decree dated 27.8.1977 for recovery of Rs. 745.20 passed by the Arbitrator under the provisions of Punjab Co-operative Societies Act (for short the Act). It was stated that the defendant-Society had made a claim against the plaintiff on the basis of a Bill dated 7.7.1967; the plaintiff had resigned his job in 1970; defendant No. 2 who was appointed as an Arbitrator gave his award dated 27.8.1977. The suit was contested by the respondent-Society. The trial Court decreed the suit on the ground that competent authority had passed the order of transfer of the proceedings from the Arbitrator-defendant No. 2 and thereafter the Arbitrator was not entitled to proceed. It was also held that the claim of the Society was time barred under Section 54 of the Act. The Appellate Court held that Section 54 was not applicable and the award made by the Arbitrator could not be challenged in the Civil Court in view of the bar contained under Section 82 of the Act. 2. Learned for the appellant submitted that an order has been passed under Section 56(2) for transfer of the proceedings from the Arbitrator but ignoring the said order, the Arbitrator gave award. Reliance is placed on finding recorded by the trial Court in para 10 of the judgment. It has been submitted that the Appellate Court erred in holding that jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred. Reliance has been placed on decisions reported in Om Parkash v. Dodewal Co-operative Agricultural Service Society and another, 1982 P.L.J. 477, Lok Sewak Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Society, Faridkot v. Jango Singh, 1974 P.L.J. 5 and Ram Singh v. The Gandhar Agricultural Co-operative Service Society, 1975 P.L.J. 162 in support of the submission that where order of the statutory authority was violative of natural justice, Civil Court jurisdiction is not barred. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the record, I am unable to accept this appeal. No doubt, the Civil Court jurisdiction and to consider whether order of statutory authority is nullity, without jurisdiction and ultra vires is not barred as held in the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, there is nothing on record to substantiate the case of the appellant that the award of the Arbitrator was nullity or ultra vires of any statutory provisions. No doubt, the trial Court observed that the proceedings from the Arbitrator were ordered to be transferred but there is no material on record to support this finding. 4. In view of the above, no ground has been made out for interfering with the finding of the Appellate Court holding that the suit of the appellant was liable to be dismissed. 5. This appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.