CWP No.12813 of 1988 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.12813 of 1988 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.12.2011 Jagir Singh son of Narain Singh, resident of Village Boharanwala Sagarpura, Tehsil Batala District Gurdaspur. ... Petitioner Versus Commissioner (Appeals) Jalandhar Division with Head Quarter at Chandigarh (Exercising the powers of the State Government under the Punjab Cooperative Socieites Act, 1961) and others. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:Mr. M.S. Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Sahu, AAG, Punjab, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.Harit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. D.B. Sharma, Senior Advocate, for respondent No.3. None for respondent No.4. ***** 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the order passed by the authorities constituted under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. The petitioner had availed a loan from the Cooperative Agricultural Service Society and recoveries were sought before the Arbitrator in terms of a dispute raised under CWP No.12813 of 1988 (O&M) [2] Section 56 of the Act. The Arbitrator found that out of `21123.44 advanced to the petitioner, a repayment of `13921.34 alone had been shown as returned. Balance of `7202.10 remained outstanding and the award was passed against the petitioner to the above amount with interest and cost. The petitioner was contending that he had made the whole payment through the Secretary, who was arrayed as the 2nd respondent. The Arbitrator also passed an award for `4250/- with interest and cost as the amount payable by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner alone had preferred an appeal while the 2nd respondent against whom a portion of the award had been passed, had not preferred any appeal. The appellate authority even without an appeal by the Cooperative Society had modified the Arbitrator's award and cast the entire liability of `11452.10 against the petitioner. A revision filed to the 1st respondent was dismissed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when all the repayments have been done and admitted by the Ex-Secretary as having been received by him, the petitioner could not have been made liable at all. The other contention is that an Arbitrator's award could not have been modified to cast the whole liability on him, even without an appeal by the Society or Ex-Secretary. 3. In order to constitute an admission, it shall be by a person, who is an adversary. A statement by a co-defendant cannot constitute an admission to the benefit of the petitioner, who was the defendant (the 2nd party) before the Arbitrator. In any event, I have read through the order of the Arbitrator and I find that there is no admission on the part of the Ex-Secretary that all the payments have been received by him. On the other hand, the order records the fact that Nirmal Singh, Ex-Secretary CWP No.12813 of 1988 (O&M) [3] was even absent during the proceedings. The plea of admission of receipts by the 2nd defendant cannot be, therefore, accepted. 4. As regards the contention that the entire liability could not have been cast on him in modification of the order of the Arbitrator, I find the Cooperative Society itself had not preferred an appeal against the award and there could not have been a modification for its benefit by casting the entire liability on the petitioner. A power, which a Civil Court may have under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC cannot avail in a statutory appeal, which are governed by its own procedures. The provision in an appeal under Section 68 does not detail any special powers akin to the Court under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC. Even the rules framed under the Act do not envisage any special powers for the appellate authority to modify the award without an appeal by an aggrieved party. I, therefore, set aside the appellate authority's order as confirmed by the 1st respondent herein, which has enlarged the liability cast by the award passed by the Arbitrator. 5. The Arbitrator's award is restored and the order passed by the appellate authority namely the 2nd respondent-Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies and the revisional authority Commissioner stand modified to this extent. The Cooperative Society shall be at liberty to recover the balance of amount from the Ex-Secretary, who has been arrayed as the 4th respondent in this writ petition. 6. The impugned order is modified and the writ petition is ordered in terms of the above. DECEMBER 08, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE