Judgment :- The above civil revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 20.6.2003 rendered in C.M.A.No.15 of 2002 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Hosur thereby reversing the fair and decretal order dated 12.4.2002 made in I.A.No.202 of 2002 in O.S.No.51 of 2002 by the Court of District Munsif, Hosur. 2. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, it comes tobe known that the petitioners are the employees of the first respondent Society; that the first respondent alleging misappropriation of funds, by his proceeding dated 23.8.2001 framed charges and sought to initiate departmental enquiry against the petitioners further calling upon the petitioners to submit their explanations; that the petitioners, in turn, have requested the first respondent to furnish the copy of the documents, imputation of charges and the list of witnesses so as to enable them to submit their explanations and since in spite of receipt of the same, the first respondent did not comply with the demands, but has appointed the third respondent as an Enquiry Officer further calling upon the petitioners to attend the enquiry on 6.4.2002, the petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.51 of 2002 before the Court of District Munsif, Hosur as against the respondents for permanent injunction restraining the third respondent from holding any enquiry as against them on 6.4.2002 or on any subsequent date in the absence of original records pertaining to the alleged irregularities and misappropriation occurred in the defendant Bank contained in the memo. dated 23.8.2001 issued to them, to direct the second respondent herein to comply with all relevant records in the enquiry, leaving vague charges, supply relevant records and pay the subsistence allowance and to direct the second respondent to replace the third respondent by appointing an impartial person as Enquiry Officer in his place. Along with the said suit, the petitioners have also filed a petition in I.A.No.202 of 2002 under Order 39 Rule 1 r/w.Section 151 CPC praying to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents from holding the enquiry proceedings on 6.4.2002 or any other subsequent dates till the disposal of the suit. 3. Along with the said suit, the petitioners have also filed a petition in I.A.No.202 of 2002 under Order 39 Rule 1 r/w.Section 151 CPC praying to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents from holding the enquiry proceedings on 6.4.2002 or any other subsequent dates till the disposal of the suit. 3. The trial Court has conducted a thorough enquiry into the matter wherein on behalf of the petitioners, though no oral evidence has been adduced, they would mark nine documents as Exs.A.1 to A.9 and on behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced. The trial Court, in consideration of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, has ultimately allowed the said petition thereby granting temporary injunction as prayed for. Aggrieved, the respondents herein have preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.15 of 2002 before the Court of Subordinate Judge, Hosur and the said Court having observed that under Section 156 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, has ultimately allowed the appeal thereby holding that the suit itself is not maintainable thus reversing the findings of the trial Court. 4. 4. It is only against the said decision of the lower appellate Court, the petitioners have come forward to file the above civil revision petition on grounds such as that (i) the lower appellate Court has failed to consider that only a suit against a final order passed under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act is not maintainable and not the suit questioning the irregularities committed in the enquiry; (ii) that the lower appellate Court has failed to note that under Section 9 CPC and Specific Relief Act, a suit is maintainable for enforcing the right of principles of natural justice, which was denied to the plaintiffs in a departmental enquiry initiated against them; (iii) that the lower appellate Court has misconstrued the principles laid down in 1999-1-L.W.180; (iv) that the lower appellate Court has failed to consider that under section 151 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act only certain orders passed under the Act can be challenged and not all the proceedings, which vitiates the entire proceedings; (v) that the lower appellate Court erred in deciding the question of jurisdiction in an application for interim-injunction without considering the fact that the question of jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and fact and the same can be decided in the suit and not as a preliminary issue. 5. During arguments the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would only reiterate the points raised in the pleadings, so far as the factual position of the case is concerned and would lay emphasis on the order of interim injunction passed by the trial Court not to conduct the enquiry without furnishing the copy of the document, against which an appeal preferred by the respondents came to be allowed by the appellate Court on ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any suit to questioning the validity of any Act done in a domestic proceeding particularly when it is connecting to the Cooperative Societies Act since section 156 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 is a bar for such proceeding being taken by a Civil Court of law. 6. Learned counsel would also cite a judgment reported in Dwarka Prasad (D) by Lrs. 6. Learned counsel would also cite a judgment reported in Dwarka Prasad (D) by Lrs. and another v. Ramesh Chandra Agarwala and others (2003(3) CTC 184), wherein a learned single Judge of this Court while dealing with the question regarding the jurisdiction, it is held that 'the burden of proof regarding ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Court lies on one who claims such ouster and further held that the Companies Act also does not completely oust jurisdiction of Civil Court as per the ratio laid down by the Delhi High Court in Maharaja Exports and Another v. Apparels Exports Promotional Council, 1986(60) Comp.Cases 353 approved'. 7. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents in the above Civil Revision Petition, since the above Civil Revision is decided at the stage of admission itself regarding maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition, and since no notice has been issued to the respondents and since it is the jurisdiction question which has been raised by the lower appellate Court, based on which the lower Appellate Court has held that under Section 156 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, the civil case registered by the petitioners herein before the trial Court is barred and therefore, only subject to answer to the above question the above Civil Revision Petition could be admitted, lest it would become liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself and it has become paramount on the part of this Court to consider this aspect of law as the preliminary question of law involved in the above case. 8. In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner in the above Civil Revision Petition, what could be assessed by this Court is that the Original Suit in O.S.No.51 of 2002 has been filed in the course of a disciplinary proceeding by the employees of the first respondent Society who are the petitioners herein questioning the validity of certain rights of the enquiry officer in initiating and proceeding with the enquiry proceeding and the Civil Court has not only entertained the suit but also granted an order of ad-interim injunction pending disposal of the suit wherein the subject matter is the domestic enquiry conducted under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983. 9. 9. On appeal preferred by the respondents/defendants in C.M.A.No.15 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Hosur, the learned Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal setting aside the fair and decretal order passed by the trial Court holding that since there is a bar of jurisdiction is there under Section 156 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, thereby bearing the Civil Courts from entertaining such suits and therefore, since the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain such suit itself has been barred, the trial Court having entertained the suit and decided the issues therein in the manner as it is decided totally illegal and without jurisdiction, thus not only allowing the C.M.A. but also declaring that the act of the trial court in entertaining the suit itself is illegal and it is this judgment passed by the lower appellate Court in C.M.A.No.15 of 2002, is being testified in the above Civil Revision Petition on certain grounds brought forth in the grounds of revision. 10. The short question that falls for consideration is whether the suit is maintained against the disciplinary proceeding initiated under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 and the Rules. It is a settled law that not only a disciplinary proceeding initiated under the Cooperative Societies Act or Rules, but any disciplinary proceeding for the matter belonging to any department and its Rules and Regulations and the law leave alone the private managements cannot be questioned before a Civil forum and any point in appeal or revision could be raised only in accordance with the statutory provisions of each and every Act concerned with the department or management, and thereafter, before the High Court by way of writ and no suit can be entertained as it has been resorted to on the part of the petitioners herein before the trial Court. Needless to mention the bar of jurisdiction created under Section 156 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 cannot permit any such institution of the suit and therefore, no time need be wasted in deciding that the lower appellate Court is perfectly right in holding that the Civil Courts do not have any jurisdiction to entertain the suits or to decide the same. The judgment cited above since being not concerned with the subject matter which is a domestic enquiry proceeding pertaining to which a suit has been filed and therefore, the norms evolved thereunder cannot be applied to the case of the petitioners and hence on a deep consideration of this legal aspect of maintainability of the suit before the civil Court pertaining to the subject matter, the only answer that could be given is in the negative and hence the following order: In result, (i) there is absolutely no merit in the above Civil Revision Petition and it becomes liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly; (ii) the judgment and decree dated 20.6.2003 rendered in C.M.A.No.15 of 2002 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Hosur thereby reversing the fair and decretal order dated 12.4.2002 made in I.A.No.202 of 2002 in O.S.No.51 of 2002 by the Court of District Munsif, Hosur is confirmed; (iii) however, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs; (iv) consequently, C.M.P.No.14647 of 2003 is also dismissed.