JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant/plaintiff's suit was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 16.5.2002 on the ground that the plaintiff's suit is barred by Section 143 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act of 1965') and the appeal against said judgment and decree was dismissed by the first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 7.5.2005. Hence, this second appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant submitted that the plaintiff's suit was not barred under Section 143 of the Act of 1965 as no notice was required to be given to the respondent society before filing the suit as the plaintiff only claimed the relief of injunction against the absolutely illegal threat of the defendants as the plaintiff is tenant in the canteen in dispute and the defendants without any authority of law, wanted to remove the canteen. According to learned counsel for the appellant, all the matters which are covered under Section 143 are those matters for which the remedy is provided under Section 75 and where the disputes are required to be resolved by arbitration. Otherwise also, according to learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant's suit was for mere injunction. 4. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the reasons given by the two courts below in the impugned judgments. 5. Section 143 of the Act of 1965 reads as under:- "143. Notice necessary in suits.- No suit shall instituted against a co-operative society or any of its officers in respect of any act touching the constitution, management or the business of the society until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to the Registrar, or left at his office, stating the cause of action the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff, and the relief which he claims ; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left." 6. Section 143 nowhere provides that the notice shall be required only in case where the dispute can be resolved under Section 75 of the Act of 1965. Had it been there, then it would have been contrary to the scheme of the resolution of disputes through arbitration. Section 143 nowhere provides that the notice shall be required only in case where the dispute can be resolved under Section 75 of the Act of 1965. Had it been there, then it would have been contrary to the scheme of the resolution of disputes through arbitration. The clause of arbitration itself bars the suit if objection is raised in accordance with law and then there would not have arisen any occasion for serving of notice as required by Section 143. Be it as it may be, in the facts of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgments because of the plain and simple reason that in a suit for injunction, when the suit was dismissed on 16.5.2002 and the appeal was dismissed on 7.5.2005 and more than 2 years have already passed to the appellate judgment and the consequence of the judgments of the courts below is only that the plaintiff/appellant can file suit for relief by serving a notice upon the society. 7. In view of the above, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Consequently, this second appeal, having no merits, is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******