IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4585 2009 Date of Decision : December 08, 2009 Sital Singh ....Appellant Versus The Sialba Majri Co-operation Agriculture Service Society Ltd. and others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) Suit for declaration filed by the appellant that the award dated 25.6.1998 passed by Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ropar was illegal, null and void, without jurisdiction and having no value in the eyes of law and for permanent injunction for restraining defendant No.1 from executing the same, was dismissed by the trial Court on 17.9.2007. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant filed the first appeal, which was also dismissed by the lower appellate Court on 22.7.2009. The appellant is now before this Court by way of second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant was non-suited by the learned Courts below on the ground that the jurisdiction of the civil Court was barred under Section 82 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. While coming to such a R.S.A. No. 4585 of 2009 -2- conclusion, learned Courts below referred to the admission made by the appellant in his cross-examination, wherein he stated that he had been taking fertilizers from the defendant-Society besides obtaining loans. All this was sufficient to hold that the appellant was member of the Society. Once it was so, he was required to proceed under the aforementioned Act for challenging the award passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, instead of filing the present suit, as Section 82 of the Act specifically barred jurisdiction of the civil Court. No ground for interference in the concurrent findings of facts is made out. These findings are neither perverse nor do they suffer from any illegality or infirmity. They cannot be disturbed in a second appeal, which is maintainable only on some substantial question of law and not otherwise. None of the substantial questions of law, as formulated by learned counsel for the appellant, arises for determination. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. ( T.P.S. MANN ) December 08, 2009 JUDGE satish