IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15809 of 2005 Between: Bheri Sreeramulu … Petitioner AND The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Visakhapatnam & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P. Rajasekhar Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Cooperation Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri J.U.M.V. Prasad This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15809 of 2005 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 30.06.2005 passed in ARC.No.22 of 2005 on the file of respondent No.1. The dispute pertains to plot No.86 admeasuring 385 square yards of vacant site in Kapparada layout, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner claimed to have been allotted the said plot in the year 1985. When the said allotment was cancelled, he raised a dispute before respondent No.1, which was take on ﬁle as ARC No.20 of 1999. The said dispute was decided in favour of the petitioner by order dated 17.05.2000. The petitioner claimed that the said order was implemented on 26.07.2000. Respondent No.2 ﬁled O.S.No.451 of 2002 before the learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for permanent injunction against the petitioner. On the plea taken by the petitioner that the dispute raised by respondent No.2 falls within the provisions of Section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’), the said suit was dismissed on 19.01.2005. Respondent No.2 thereupon moved respondent No.1 by way of a purported plaint ﬁled under Section 61 of the Act for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and persons claiming through him from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plot in dispute. The said claim of respondent No.2 was accepted and respondent No.1 granted permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Sri P. Rajashekar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction. According to him, respondent No.1 assumed the role of a civil Court and granted the relief of permanent injunction, which is totally without jurisdiction. Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.2, opposing the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner having objected to respondent No.2 maintaining a civil suit and got the said suit dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, it is not open to him to object to the jurisdiction of respondent No.1 in entertaining and deciding the dispute between the parties. He also urged that respondent No.1 has the jurisdiction to grant a declaratory relief and also injunction and the petitioner cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgment of this Court in R. Subramanyam Reddy vs. The Gajulamandyam Larger Sized Cooperative Credit Society and others[1] and the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Kondal Rao and others vs. Gopal Rao[2]. Under Section 61 of the Act, the Registrar inter alia is conferred with the jurisdiction to settle the disputes touching the constitution, management or the business of a society, other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the society or its committee against a paid employee of the society, if such a dispute arises among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members etc. Section 62 prescribes the action to be taken by the Registrar on reference of a dispute, which includes his power to elect to decide the dispute himself. Under Section 62 (2), where the reference relates to any dispute involving immovable property, the Registrar or such person or arbitrator may order that any person be joined as a party, who has acquired an interest in such property subsequent to the acquisition of interest therein by a party to the reference and any decision that may be passed on the reference by the Registrar or the person or the arbitrator, shall be binding on the parties so joined. Section 62 (4), which is very relevant for the present purpose, reads as under: “The Registrar, such person or arbitrator shall decide the dispute in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules and bye-laws and such decision shall, subject to the provisions of Section 76, be ﬁnal. Pending ﬁnal decision on the dispute, the Registrar, such person or arbitrator, as the case may be, may make such interlocutory orders as he may deem necessary in the interest of justice.” Chapter 10 deals with execution of decisions, decrees and orders. Section 70-A deals with execution of non- monetary orders such as order or decision passed or taken under Section 62 of the Act by the civil Court having jurisdiction. A perusal of the claim petition ﬁled by respondent No.2 shows that it is styled as a plaint and he claimed the following reliefs: “The plaintiﬀ is therefore humbly pray that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree ad judgment in his favour against the 1st defendant for i. A permanent injunction, restraining the 1st defendant, his men, agents and whosoever acting on his behalf from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in any manner whatsoever. ii. Costs of the ARC. iii. Such other relief or reliefs which the Hon’ble Court deems ﬁt and just under the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” Indisputably, respondent No.1 is not a civil Court. Section 62 (4), which is reproduced above, clearly prescribed contours for respondent No.1 to exercise his jurisdiction within the limits of the provisions of the Act. Section 120 (1) vested power in respondent No.1 to summon witnesses and requisition documents and for this purpose he is vested with the power of a civil Court while trying a civil suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of the following matters: “(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath or affirmation. (b) compelling the production of any book, account, record or other document, cash, security or other property; (c) issuing a commission for the examination of any witness; (d) receiving evidence on an affidavit.” Under Section 120 (2), the Tribunal, Registrar, the arbitrator or the liquidator, as the case may be, may require any person present before it or him to furnish any information or to produce any document forthwith in his possession or power and shall also have power to take or to authorize the taking of such copies of the document, or of any entries therein as it or he may consider necessary. Under Section 121, ﬁnality is attached to orders, refusals, decisions or awards passed or directions issued under the Act or the Rules made thereunder, subject to the provisions for appeal, revision and review and it imposed a bar on questioning such orders, refusals, decisions etc., in any Court or forum. From the abovementioned provisions, it is clear that respondent No.1 is bound to decide the dispute raised before him within the powers conferred on him by the provisions of the Act. He is conferred with the limited powers of civil Court enumerated in Section 120 of the Act touching on the procedural aspects. Therefore, it is not permissible for him to entertain a claim for permanent injunction, which is substantive in nature in the absence of any speciﬁc provision under the Act, which empowered him to entertain an application for such a relief and grant the same. The power to grant an order of injunction is inhered in a civil Court under the provisions of the Speciﬁc Relief Act, 1963 and the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Respondent No.1, who admittedly is not a civil Court, but as mentioned above, is conferred with very limited powers of civil Court for certain purposes as mentioned in Section 120 cannot assume the role of civil Court and grant the relief of permanent injunction in favour of any party. In the instant case, he not only entertained the claim for permanent injunction, but also granted such an injunction, which is far beyond his jurisdiction and powers conferred on him by the Act. The judgment in R. Subramanyam Reddy (1 supra) relied on by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has not laid down the proposition that the Registrar is the substitute for the civil Court and he is vested with the jurisdiction to grant a decree for permanent injunction. In the said case, the suit ﬁled by a party, who already suﬀered an order passed under Section 62 by the Registrar for declaration, was dismissed, which was conﬁrmed by the lower appellate Court. In the second appeal ﬁled in this Court, the judgment of the Trial Court and the lower appellate Court were conﬁrmed by holding that in view of the bar contained in Section 121 of the Act, the civil suit was not maintainable. This judgment therefore has no application whatsoever to the present case. In Kondal Rao and others (2 supra) on which the learned counsel for respondent No.2 placed reliance, a Division Bench of this Court held that a person at whose instance the plaintiﬀ was forced to institute a suit cannot be allowed to say that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Even this judgment does not help respondent No.2, because, the present case is a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction on the part of respondent No.1 to entertain an application for permanent injunction. The law is well settled that parties cannot confer jurisdiction on an authority, which inherently lacks jurisdiction. This Court in Bank of India, CBD Belapur Branch, Navi Mumbai vs. U.A.N. Raju and another [3] restated this well settled proposition. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. This order, however, does not preclude respondent No.2 to approach respondent No.1 afresh by raising a dispute under Section 61 of the Act and in such an event respondent No.1 is directed to decide the dispute strictly within the parameters of the Act. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.Nos.20065 of 2005 ad 23155 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 04.09.2008 ES Note:- Issue CC in one week. B/o. ES [1] 1991 (1) APLJ 61 (NRC) [2] 1964 (1) ALT 245 [3] 2004 (1) ALD 577 (DB)