(1) SA. 573.2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 573 OF 2008 Prabhu S/o Eknathrao Chikate, Age : 60 years, Occu.: Pensioner, R/o Ramabai Ambedkar Chowk, Latur, Dist. Latur .. Appellant VERSUS 1] The Secretary, Govt. Rural Development Dept., Mantralaya, Mumbai (To be served through AGP High Court, Aurangabad) 2] The Chief Executive Officer, Latur Zilla Parishad, Latur, Dist. Latur 3] The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Latur, Dist. Latur .. Respondents AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2597 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 573 OF 2008 Prabhu S/o Eknathrao Chitake .. Applicant VERSUS The Secretary, Govt. Rural Development and others .. Respondents Mr. A.R. Kale, Advocate h/f. Mr. R.B. Deshmukh, Advocate for the appellant Mr. V.D. Godbharle, AGP for respondent no.1-State None present for respondent nos. 2 and 3 though served (2) SA. 573.2008 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 4TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 ORAL ORDER:- 1] The Second Appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the Suit filed by the appellant was not maintainable in the Civil Court. I went through the judgments of both the Courts below and found that the reasons for arriving at the above mentioned conclusion were sound. 2] The appellant-plaintiff filed this Suit in quite a peculiar situation. The appellant admitted that while he was in service of Zilla Parishad, as a Teacher, he obtained loan from the Employees Co- Operative Credit Society. He also admitted that he permitted his employer to deduct monthly installment from his salary, for effective repayment of the loan. The appellant reached the age of superannuation in 2003, and started getting pension. His employer still continued to deduct the amount earlier fixed for effective repayment of the loan to the society. The appellant filed the Suit alleging that as per the provisions of section 132 and 134 of the Pension Rules, 1982, the employer is not entitled to recover installments for repayment of the loan. He filed the Suit for preventing his employer from deducting the installment from his pension amount. (3) SA. 573.2008 3] The Courts below rightly held that the cause of action is hit by section 163 of the Co-operative Societies Act. Such suit, it is held, is not maintainable in Civil Court. The Courts below rightly noticed that the appellant had agreed under section 49 of the Co-operative Societies Act, for deductions from his salary and pension for the purpose of repayment of the loan, he had obtained from the Credit Society. If the appellant-plaintiff had any dispute about the recovery of loan, the dues, the arrears etc. and even in respect of his employer’s right to recover the amount as per the agreement he executed under section 49 of the Co- operative Societies Act, his remedy lies under section 91 of the Co-operative Societies Act. 4] The Courts below rightly dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction. The Second Appeal, should therefore fail. The Second Appeal stands dismissed. 5] In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal no. 573 of 2008, Civil Application no. 2597 of 2009, seeking injunction does not survive and the same also stands dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp