CWP No. 17893 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17893 of 2010 Date of decision : 07.03.2011 Kulwinder Kaur ...Petitioner versus The State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Palwinder Singh,Sr. D.A.G., Punjab for respondent No 1. Mr. Karan Singh Aulakh, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 to 4. **** M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) Petitioner-Kulwinder Kaur wife of Gurdial Singh has preferred the instant writ petition restraining the respondents not to take forcible possession and to auction her plot in question, in the garb of non-payment of the loan, inter alia, pleading that she had taken the loan of ` 60,000/- in the year 1989 from the Managing Director, Punjab State Federation of Co-op House Building Societies Ltd., Ropar at Chandigarh (respondent No. 4) through The Dashmesh Nagar Co-op House Building Society Ltd., Goniana Mandi District Bhatinda (respondent No.2), governed under the Punjab Co operative Societies Act/Rules, 1961 (herein after referred tobe as “the Act”), to be repaid in 20 years in 80 quarterly instalments, as per agreement (Annexure P1). She has also mortgaged her plot as security of the loan. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequences of events, in all, according to the petitioner that she has paid the entire amount of loan CWP No. 17893 of 2010 -2- including the interest amount of ` 1,77,232/- and the respondents are illegally bent upon to take forcible possession of her mortgaged plot and to auction it without any legal right. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the petitioner filed the present writ petition, invoking the provisions of Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, in the manner indicated herein above. 3. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed their joint written statement, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of maintainability of the writ petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. According to the contesting respondents, writ petition is not maintainable, as petitioner has not approached the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, as provided under Sections 55 & 56 of the Act. It will not be out of place to mention here that the contesting respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record, with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present writ petition deserves to be accepted, in this context. 5. As is evident from the record, petitioner claimed that she had already paid the entire amount, including the interest amount and all other incidental charges but the respondents illegally want to dispossess her and auction her plot in question, in the garb of the loan without any legal basis. On the contrary, the respondents have denied the same. Although, in the written statement dated 13.11.2002, filed in this Court on 09.12.2010, the contesting respondents did not take any specific plea that any award was passed against the petitioner, but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the copy of alleged ex parte arbitration award dated 04.09.1997, the original of which has not seen the door of the Court. The mere fact that the contesting respondents did CWP No. 17893 of 2010 -3- not take the plea of passing of ex parte arbitration award dated 04.09.1997 in their written statement, would give rise to a definite inference that all has illegaly been done at the back of the petitioner, to deprive her from the plot in question. The alleged ex parte award passed at the back of the petitioner, is not only illegal but non-speaking, cryptic and result of non application of mind as well. Such illegal award cannot legally be acted upon, which were passed in complete violation of the due procedure and is hereby ignored, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 6. To my mind, justice would be sub-served and real controversy between the parties can only be decided, if the petitioner is permitted to raise a regular dispute under Sections 55 & 56 of the Act, in this context. 7. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of hearing of the arbitration proceedings, the writ petition is accepted with costs. The petitioner is directed to raise a regular dispute within a period of two months from today, under Sections 55 & 56 of the Act and the Arbitrator, so appointed, is further directed to decide the regular indicated dispute, after affording the adequate opportunity to the parties and by passing a speaking order, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. However, respondents are restrained from dispossessing the petitioner and to auction her plot in question unless regular dispute of payment of loan is finally decided by the Arbitrator under the Act. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge March 07, 2011 G.Arora Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No