Civil court jurisdiction and forged cheque liability: explanatory clauses cannot expand statutory bars, and banks remain liable absent a valid mandate.

The civil court's jurisdiction was not excluded because Section 48(1) of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act applied only to disputes within the specific classes listed there, and the Explanation could not enlarge that substantive category. The dispute, not falling within those classes, remained triable in civil court. On liability, payment on a forged cheque was made without any valid mandate, so the bank could not avoid responsibility by alleging negligence on the part of the plaintiff society or its officer. The loss was attributed to the bank's negligence and employee complicity, and liability against the bank and the other liable defendants was maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit was barred from the civil court's jurisdiction by Section 48(1) read with Section 57 of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935. (ii) Whether the plaintiff society's claim against the bank failed on the ground that its own negligence or that of its officer contributed to the loss.

Issue (i): Whether the suit was barred from the civil court's jurisdiction by Section 48(1) read with Section 57 of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935.

Analysis: The jurisdictional bar applied only to disputes falling within the specific classes enumerated in Section 48(1). The Explanation to the section was intended to remove ambiguity and clarify when a claim would be treated as a dispute touching the business of the society, but it did not expand the main provision so as to include every dispute between a registered society and a non-member. The 1948 amendment introducing non-members in the Explanation did not create a new head of disputes beyond clauses (a) to (e). Since the dispute in question did not fall within those categories, the civil court's jurisdiction was not excluded.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by Sections 48(1) and 57, and the High Court was wrong in holding that the civil court lacked jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff society's claim against the bank failed on the ground that its own negligence or that of its officer contributed to the loss.

Analysis: The cheque on which payment was made was forged, and one of the purported signatures was not genuine. In such a case there was no valid mandate to the banker at all. Negligence by the customer in the transaction between signature and presentation could not avail the bank where the instrument itself was a nullity. The loss was attributable to the bank's negligence and the complicity of its employees, and the officer's dishonesty on the plaintiff side was not the proximate cause of the loss.

Conclusion: The bank's defence based on the plaintiff's alleged negligence failed, and liability remained established against the bank and the concerned defendants.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's decree was set aside, and the decree of the Subordinate Judge was restored with costs against the remaining respondents, save that no decree was passed against respondent no. 7.

Ratio Decidendi: An explanatory provision in a jurisdiction-closing statute cannot be construed to enlarge the substantive class of disputes covered by the principal section; and where payment is made on a forged cheque lacking a genuine mandate, the bank cannot escape liability by invoking alleged negligence of the customer unless a valid instrument or estoppel is shown.

---