JUDGMENT : Deepak Maheshwari, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by defendant-appellant to assail the judgment and decree dated 23rd December, 1995 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Original Suit No. 160/1985 whereby, learned trial Court dismissed the suit for specific performance but decreed the sum of Rs. 1,46,374.58/- in favour of the plaintiff along with 18% per annum interest thereupon till realization of the money. 2. Briefly stating the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff being a registered company under Companies Act entered into agreement with the defendant - Society registered under Societies Act to purchase 50 residential plots and paid a sum of Rs. 6,56,855/- as advance. The plots were to be allotted in Nemisagar Colony. Defendant - Society allotted the plots worth Rs. 3,41,986.86/- only. It neither returned the money nor allotted plot for the remaining amount. Notice under Section 143 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act was given on 30th December, 1983 but of no avail. Hence, the suit was filed. 3. By filing written statement, defendant No. 1 - Society denied the facts mentioned in the plaint and also the fact of the oral agreement with the Company to allot 50 plots. It was, however, stated that one T.C. Kothari paid the amount for 13 plots which were accordingly allotted to the concerned persons. It was also stated that defendant entered into a compromise with the plaintiff but plaintiff did not turn up to get the money back. Reply to the notice was also sent to the plaintiff. 4. Defence of defendant No. 1 was closed on 20th December, 1989. Defendant No. 2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 26th July, 1987. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the defendants. Issues were also not framed, as the defence of the defendants was closed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued mainly on the ground that the learned trial Court has committed a jurisdictional error in light of the provisions contained in Section 75 of Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 to which corresponding provisions is Section 58 in the Cooperative Societies Act, 2001. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued mainly on the ground that the learned trial Court has committed a jurisdictional error in light of the provisions contained in Section 75 of Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 to which corresponding provisions is Section 58 in the Cooperative Societies Act, 2001. He has contended that on one hand, learned trial Court has treated the plaintiff to be allottee of the plots and thus, member of the society and on the other hand, it has been decided that the provisions of Section 58 of Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 are not applicable in the matter in hand. In view of the above said provision, the jurisdiction lies only with the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and Civil Court is barred from entertaining any such dispute. It has also been contended that learned trial Court has erred in awarding the amount of interest against the Society which is not conducting any business or commercial activities. Moreover, excessive rate of interest @ 18% per annum has been awarded. It has also been stated that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the defendant. 6. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff Company to contest this appeal. 7. In light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court, the judgment impugned and the evidence available on record was critically examined. 8. Insofar as applicability of Section 58 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 to the matter in hand is concerned, learned trial Court has inferred that if any dispute arises between the members of the Society and the Society or its office bearers touching the constitution, management or business of the Cooperative Society, then only it shall be referred to the Registrar and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court shall be barred. But the subject matter of this suit is not a dispute touching the constitution, management and business of the Cooperative Society. It has been further held that the plaintiff - Company is not a member of the Society, hence Section 75 (now Section 58 of the Act of 2001) is not applicable in this matter. 9. But the subject matter of this suit is not a dispute touching the constitution, management and business of the Cooperative Society. It has been further held that the plaintiff - Company is not a member of the Society, hence Section 75 (now Section 58 of the Act of 2001) is not applicable in this matter. 9. As regards the nature and scope of the dispute, on close scrutiny of the pleadings, it comes out that a sum of Rs.3,06,855/- was paid to the defendant Society on behalf of some other persons besides the amount given by the plaintiff Company. But no evidence has been adduced regarding payment of this amount of Rs.3,06,855/-. But so far as the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- is concerned, it was paid on behalf of the plaintiff Company which the defendants have admitted to receive as per para - 5 of the written statement. But it has nowhere been stated that the amount was paid by the plaintiff Company as a member of the Society. The averments made in the plaint disclose that this amount was paid as advance for the plots under an oral agreement. Simply because the amount was deposited by the Company for allotment of certain plots, it cannot be inferred that Company became member of the Society. Further, neither any proof regarding membership of the Company nor any certificate containing its membership number has been submitted by the appellant - defendant in order to prove that the plaintiff Company was a member of the Society. In view of this fact, it cannot be inferred that plaintiff - Company was a member of defendant Society and thus, the dispute between the two was a dispute required to be referred to the Registrar under provisions of Section 58 of the Act of 2001. Moreover, the subject matter of the dispute is not touching the constitution, management or the business of the Cooperative Society; thus, the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court in rejecting the objection raised in respect of Section 58 (Section 75 of the Old Act) appears to be perfectly legal. There appears no substance in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard. Consequently, it cannot be inferred that the trial Court has committed a jurisdictional error in entertaining the suit and proceeding to decide it. 10. There appears no substance in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard. Consequently, it cannot be inferred that the trial Court has committed a jurisdictional error in entertaining the suit and proceeding to decide it. 10. So far as the objection regarding Notice under Section 143 of the Cooperative Societies Act not having been served upon the Society, it appears completely baseless as the defendant No. 1 has himself admitted in the written statement filed on 22nd March, 1986 that the reply to the notice was sent. Hence, this argument is also bereft of any merit. 11. As regards the objection for not providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the appellant, on perusal of the record, it appears that Vakalatnama was filed on behalf of appellant - defendant No. 1 on 3rd October, 1985. Written statement was filed by him on 22nd March, 1986. Several applications came to be filed on behalf of the defendants under different provisions of law which were considered and decided by trial Court. On account of absence of defendant, ex-parte proceeding was initiated on 26th July, 1989 which was set aside vide order dated 17th October, 1989. Thereafter, an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 11 Rule 21 CPC was decided on 20th December, 1989 by which, defence of the defendants was struck out. However, defendant did not take any legal recourse against the order dated 20th December, 1989. It can thus be inferred that he was satisfied with the said order which attained finality way back in the year 1989. Thereafter, the suit came to be decided on 23rd December, 1995. Thus, it cannot be said that proper opportunity of hearing was not provided to the defendant - appellant. 12. So far as the decreetal amount and the interest awarded thereon is concerned, defendant himself has admitted in the written statement to have received a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- from the plaintiff Company against which 13 plots worth Rs. 2,03,625.42/- had been allotted and it had also been admitted that a sum of Rs. 1,46,374.58/- was lying with the Society. It has been stated that the said money was kept for the prospective development work of the colony. 3,50,000/- from the plaintiff Company against which 13 plots worth Rs. 2,03,625.42/- had been allotted and it had also been admitted that a sum of Rs. 1,46,374.58/- was lying with the Society. It has been stated that the said money was kept for the prospective development work of the colony. Learned trial Court has arrived at the conclusion to award the decree for the said amount on the ground that no detail of prospective development work was given by the defendant nor any plot was further allotted to the plaintiff as against the remaining amount. In view of this fact, decree for the said amount was naturally due to be awarded and the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court cannot be faulted with. 13. So far as the rate of interest @ 18% p.a. is concerned, though it has been alleged that rate is very excessive but the appellant has failed to show on what ground, this rate is alleged to be excessive. It is found that the appellant Society was dealing in development of agricultural land into residential colonies and the plots were allotted to plaintiff Company. The advance amount was received by it from the plaintiff Company and some other persons in the name of allotting plots to them. It is thus obvious that the Society was working in the field of real estate development. Looking to the nature of the activities run by the Society, it cannot be said that it was not engaged in profit making out of some commercial transactions. In view of above, this Court does not feel inclined to interfere in the rate of interest made applicable by the learned trial Court. 14. In view of whatever has been stated above, there is no force in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed while maintaining the judgment and decree dated 23rd December, 1995.