ORDER : By this special appeal, a challenge is made to the order dated 03.12.2013 passed by learned Single Judge on a writ petition preferred by the non-appellant. 2. On a dispute between the Members of the Cooperative Society, the matter was referred to the Arbitrator under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (in short "the Act of 1965"), repealed by the Act of 2001. The Arbitrator decided the dispute in favour of the appellant. On appeal before the Rajasthan State Cooperative Appellate Tribunal (in short "the Tribunal"), the case was remanded back to the Arbitrator to decide the controversy afresh. It is looking to the fact that the non-appellant was not provided proper opportunity of hearing during the course of arbitration proceedings. After remand, the dispute was again decided in favour of the appellant and against the non-appellant. To challenge the order, an appeal was again preferred by the non-appellant before the Tribunal but it was with the delay. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on merit as well as on the issue of limitation. 3. The non-appellant preferred a writ petition which has been partly allowed. The parties are made free to approach the civil court for seeking declaration of title of the property. The orders passed by the Arbitrator and the learned Tribunal were however not set aside. It was made clear that orders passed by the Arbitrator and the Tribunal would not be an impediment to the civil court, rather civil court would decide the suit independently based on evidence led by the parties. 4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that when the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on merit as well as on limitation, the writ petition should not have been decided without asking the parties for other remedy. When the order of the Arbitrator had been affirmed by the Tribunal, remedy of civil suit would not be available. Section 75 of the Act of 1975 casts bar of any other remedy but ignoring the aforesaid, the direction has been given by the learned Single Judge. If directions of the learned Single Judge are carried out, there would be possibility to get two contradictory orders for one and same controversy. 5. Learned Single Judge should have decided the writ petition by considering merit of the case and also the issue of limitation decided by the Tribunal. If directions of the learned Single Judge are carried out, there would be possibility to get two contradictory orders for one and same controversy. 5. Learned Single Judge should have decided the writ petition by considering merit of the case and also the issue of limitation decided by the Tribunal. It could not have relegated the parties to approach the civil court in ignorance of Section 75 of the Act of 1975. The prayer is accordingly made to cause interference in the order of the learned Single Judge, rather the order be set aside with acceptance of appeal. The orders passed by the Arbitrator as well as by the Tribunal be confirmed. 6. Learned counsel for non-appellants has opposed the appeal. It is submitted that the Arbitrator did not decide the controversy between the parties. At the first instance, the case was remanded back to the Arbitrator but even thereafter, proper opportunity of hearing was not provided to the non-appellant. The controversy inter se between the parties was not scanned and determined properly by the Arbitrator. The appeal before the Tribunal was dismissed on merit as well as on the ground of limitation. 7. Learned Single Judge considered the controversy between the parties and found that issue of title of the land is required to be determined. While disposing of the writ petition, liberty was given to the parties to approach the competent civil court for seeking declaration of title of the disputed property. Since orders of the Arbitrator as well as Tribunal were not interfered, necessary direction was given for exercise of jurisdiction by the civil court independently and based on the evidence led by the parties. The order aforesaid is quite appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case thus may not be interfered. If at all this court find reason to cause interference in the order, case may be remanded back to the learned Single Judge for afresh decision. The order of the Tribunal would then be adjudged on the merit as well as on the issue of limitation. The non-appellant be given liberty to raise both the issues before the learned Single Judge for its determination. 8. We have considered rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record. 9. It is not in dispute that appellant herein invoked jurisdiction of the Arbitrator under Section 75 of the Act of 1965. The non-appellant be given liberty to raise both the issues before the learned Single Judge for its determination. 8. We have considered rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record. 9. It is not in dispute that appellant herein invoked jurisdiction of the Arbitrator under Section 75 of the Act of 1965. The Arbitrator decided the issue in favour of the appellant and against the non-appellant. An appeal was thereupon filed by the non-appellant before the Tribunal. The case was remanded back to the Arbitrator for afresh decision after providing opportunity of hearing to the non-appellant. The Arbitrator again found case in favour of the appellant and passed the order. The non-appellant again challenged the order but this time the appeal was dismissed on merit as well as on the ground of limitation. The non-appellant preferred a writ petition to challenge the orders of the Tribunal as well as of the Arbitrator. Learned Single Judge has considered the issue at length but writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the parties to approach the competent civil court for declaration of title of the disputed land. It is after recording finding that Arbitrator and the Tribunal have not adopted proper procedure. 10. The question for our consideration is as to whether parties can be asked or be given liberty to approach the civil court for seeking declaration of title of the land in dispute. For deciding the aforesaid issue, reference of Section 75 of the Act of 1965 would be relevant. The aforesaid provision was in operation at the relevant time, thus quoted hereunder: "75. For deciding the aforesaid issue, reference of Section 75 of the Act of 1965 would be relevant. The aforesaid provision was in operation at the relevant time, thus quoted hereunder: "75. Disputes which may be referred to arbitration.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute touching the constitution, management, or the business of a co-operative society 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, 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 co-operative society, (e) between the society and the surety of a member, past member or a deceased member, or a person other than a member who has been granted a loan by the society or with whom the society has or had transaction under section 66, whether such a surety is or is not a member of a society, such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of such dispute. (2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the following shall be deemed to be disputes touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, 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 any officer of the society. (3) If any question arises whether a dispute referred to the Registrar under this section is a dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, the decision thereon of the Registrar shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court." 11. As per Section 75 of the Act of 1965, dispute is to be referred to the Arbitrator and no court would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute. In the light of bar under Section 75 of the Act of 1965, a direction or liberty to the parties to approach the civil court for declaration of title cannot be said to be in consonance to the provisions of the Act of 1965. In fact, the learned Single Judge should have decided the controversy on a challenge to the orders of the Arbitrator and the Tribunal. By virtue of direction given by the learned Single Judge, there may come contradictory orders. Once the order has been passed by the Arbitrator on a dispute of the property, a civil suit cannot be preferred by the parties in view of Section 75 of the Act of 1965 and if it is allowed, there may be contradictory orders on one and same subject. The order of the Tribunal has not been interfered by the learned Single Judge but in view of facts given above, there may be contradictory orders, if parties are permitted to approach the civil court, that too, despite of bar under Section 75 of the Act of 1965. 12. We find reason to cause interference in the order of the learned Single Judge. The order of the learned Single Judge is accordingly set aside. The issue on merit so also of limitation needs to be adjudicated. The case is remanded back to the learned Single Judge for adjudication of the controversy afresh. The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid.