JUDGMENT : The defendants are in appeal. 2. The plaintiff is a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short. The plaintiff is engaged in banking business. The plaintiff runs a daily deposit scheme for their customers and the first defendant was one of the collection agents engaged by the plaintiff for the said scheme. The case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant embezzled a sum of Rs.45,000/- from the amounts collected by her from the customers of the plaintiff between the period April 2004 to November 2004 and the suit is for realisation of the said amount with interest. It is also the case of the plaintiff that when the first defendant was engaged by the plaintiff as their agent, defendants 2 and 3 had executed an indemnity bond in favour of the plaintiff by which they have agreed to indemnify the plaintiff for the loss, if any, caused to the plaintiff by the first defendant on account of her negligence or dereliction of duty. As such, according to the plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3 are also liable to the plaintiff for the loss caused by the first defendant. 3. Though the defendants filed a written statement raising various contentions, they remained ex parte when the case came up for trial. Consequently, the trial court decreed the suit as prayed for. The defendants challenged the decision of the trial court in appeal on merits. The contention raised by the defendants in the appeal was that the dispute raised by the plaintiff in the suit is a dispute which is required to be decided by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, as provided for under Section 69 of the Act and therefore, the suit is barred by Section 100 of the Act. The appellate court rejected the contention of the defendants and confirmed the decision of the trial court. The defendants are aggrieved by the concurrent decisions against them and hence this second appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as also the learned counsel for the respondent, the plaintiff. 5. The appellate court rejected the contention of the defendants and confirmed the decision of the trial court. The defendants are aggrieved by the concurrent decisions against them and hence this second appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as also the learned counsel for the respondent, the plaintiff. 5. As noted above, the ex parte decision of the trial court was challenged by the defendants on the ground that the dispute raised in the suit is a dispute which is required to be decided by the Registrar under Section 69 of the Act and therefore, the suit is barred by Section 100 of the Act. Section 100 of the Act provides that no civil court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter for which provision is made in the Act. The issue arises for consideration is, therefore, as to whether the dispute raised in the suit is a dispute which is required to be decided by the Registrar under Section 69 of the Act. Section 69 of the Act defines the disputes which are required to be decided by the Registrar under the Act. Section 69 reads thus : "69. The issue arises for consideration is, therefore, as to whether the dispute raised in the suit is a dispute which is required to be decided by the Registrar under Section 69 of the Act. Section 69 of the Act defines the disputes which are required to be decided by the Registrar under the Act. Section 69 reads thus : "69. Disputes to be decided by Co-operative Arbitration Court and Registrar – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if a dispute arises,- (a) among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members; or (b) between a member, past member or person claiming through a member, a past member or deceased member and the society, its committee or any officer, agent or employee of the society; or (c) between the society or its committee and any past committee, any officer, agent or employee or any past officer, past agent or past employee or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the society; or (d) between the society and any other society; or (e) between a society and the members of a society affiliated to it; or (f) between the society and a person, other than a member of the society, who has been granted a loan by the society or with whom the society has or had business transactions or any person claiming through such a person; or (g) between the society and a surety of a member, past member, deceased member or employee or a person, other than a member, who has been granted a loan by the society, whether such a surety is or is not a member of the society; or (h) between the society and a creditor of the society; such dispute shall be referred to the Co-operative Arbitration Court constituted under Sec.70A, in the case of non-monetary disputes and to the Registrar, in the case of monetary disputes and the Arbitration Court, or the Registrar, as the case may be, shall decide such dispute and no other court or other authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute. (2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the following shall also be deemed to be disputes, namely:- (a) a claim by the society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not; (b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor, where the society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor, as a result of the default of the principal debtor, whether such debt or demand is admitted or not; (c) any dispute arising in connection with the election of the Board of Management or any officer of the society; Explanation :- A dispute arising at any stage of an election commencing from the convening of the general body meeting for the election shall be deemed to be a dispute arising in connection with the election; (d) any dispute arising in connection with employment of officers and servants of the different classes of societies specified in sub-section (1) of Sec.80, including their promotion and inter se seniority. (3) No dispute arising in connection with the election of the Board of Management or an officer of the society shall be entertained by the Co-operative Arbitration Court unless it is referred to it within one month from the date of the election. (4) All monetary disputes mentioned in Schedule III to the Act shall be filed within the time limit specified in the said Schedule." The expression 'dispute' is defined in section 2 (i) of the Act. Section 2 (i) reads thus: "dispute" means any matter touching the business, constitution, establishments or management of a society capable of being the subject of litigation and includes a claim in respect of any sum payable to or by a society, whether such claim be admitted or not" The provisions in Section 69 of the Act, if understood in the light of the definition of 'dispute' as contained in section 2(i) of the Act, would make it clear that the jurisdiction of the civil court is excluded in respect of disputes involving matters touching the business, constitution, establishments or management of a society among or between persons enumerated in Section 69 of the Act. A dispute between a society and its agent would certainly fall under section 69(1)(c) of the Act, but that by itself is not sufficient to exclude the jurisdiction of the civil court. In order to exclude the jurisdiction of the civil court, the dispute should primarily be a dispute involving a matter touching the business, constitution, establishments or management of the society. The appellants in this case have no case that the dispute raised in the suit is a matter touching the constitution, establishments, or management of the society. According to them, the dispute raised in the suit is a matter touching the business of the society. Though the word 'touching' is used in the definition of 'dispute' to include all matters which relate to or concern the business of the society, the scheme of the Act does not indicate that the legislature intended to bring within the scope of the expression 'business' whatever the society does or is necessarily required to do for the purpose of carrying out its objects. Had it been the intention of the legislature, there was no need at all to define the expression 'dispute' and the provisions in Section 69 of Act were sufficient to achieve the purpose. The object of the Act being to organize co-operative societies as self governing, democratic institutions, to achieve equity, social justice and economic development, it is reasonable to infer that having regard to the delay in the disposal of matters before the civil courts, the legislature has intended to introduce a separate mechanism to resolve the disputes that are likely to occur in the course of the functioning of the co-operative societies and the expression 'dispute' has been defined in the Act for the said purpose. Therefore, it is obvious that the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred only in respect of the said disputes, leaving the remaining disputes to be resolved by the civil court. In the context of a similar provision contained in the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, the Apex Court in Deccan Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd v. M/s. Dalichand Jugraj Jain and others ( AIR 1969 SC 1320 ) held that 'disputes touching the business' means the actual trading or commercial or other similar business activity of the society which the society is authorised to enter into under the Act, the Rules made thereunder and the bye laws of the society. In other words, the jurisdiction of the civil court is excluded only in respect of disputes involving matters concerning the business of the society in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Rules and bye laws. 6. As noticed above, the case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant was one of the agents engaged by them for collecting amounts from their customers; that the first defendant has embezzled a portion of the amounts collected by her from the customers of the plaintiff and that therefore, they are entitled to recover the said amounts from the first defendant. It is also their case that since defendants 2 and 3 had agreed to indemnify the plaintiff for the loss, if any, caused to them on account of negligence or dereliction of duty of the first defendant, they are also liable to the plaintiff for the amounts due from the first defendant. It is thus evident that the suit, as far as the first defendant is concerned, is a suit by a society against its agent and the suit as far as defendants 2 and 3 are concerned is a suit by a society against the indemnifiers under an indemnity bond obtained by them. There cannot be any doubt to the fact that if the jurisdiction of the civil court is excluded in respect of the dispute between the plaintiff and the first defendant, the jurisdiction of the civil court will also be excluded in respect of the dispute between the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3, for, the liability of defendants 2 and 3 is dependent on the liability of the first defendant. The suit as against the first defendant, as indicated above, is a suit for realisation of the pecuniary loss caused by the first defendant to the plaintiff on account of the wrongful act committed by the first defendant. The said suit, in the circumstances, can be regarded only as a suit for realization of damages. Such a suit, in the light of the discussions aforesaid, cannot be said to be a suit involving a matter touching the business of the society. The second appeal thus fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.