IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4089 of 2007 Date of Decision : September 14, 2009 Daya Nand ....Appellant Versus The Gajuwala Co-operative Credit and Service Society Limited, Gajuwala and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Surender Singh Dalal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. H.N. Sahu, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. D.S. Bishnoi, Advocate for respondent No.3. T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court on 30.10.2006. Aggrieved of the same, he filed the first appeal which has also been dismissed by the lower appellate Court on 31.7.2007. He is now before this Court by way of second appeal. According to the plaintiff, he was posted as a Salesman with the defendant-Society from 1987 to 1996. A sum of Rs.1,94,356.90p. being cash money of the Society, Rs.37,285.90p. as per cash-book page No.134 dated 30.11.1995 and Rs.1,57,071/- as R.S.A. No. 4089 of 2007 -2- peshgi on 1.12.1995 was outstanding with Secretary of the Society. An entry was made in the cash-book at page No.137 that the Secretary was liable to pay the said amount, who deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Principal Rs.94,053/- + Interest Rs.5,947/-) vide receipt No.183376 dated 2.2.1996 and the balance of Rs.1,00,303.90p. remained outstanding However, the Society in collusion with its Secretary made out an arbitration case. In fact, it was a case to be treated under Section 104 of Haryana Co-operative Societies Act as there was no dispute regarding recovery. However, the Society sent the case to the Arbitrator, to the benefit of the Secretary. Now the Society wanted to recover the aforesaid amount from the plaintiff through illegal methods. Vide proceeding book of the Society recorded on 10.7.1996, only defendant No.2, who was its Secretary, was impleaded as party to the arbitration proceedings. Finally, an award dated 24.1.1997 was passed by Assistant Registrar, Hisar, being Arbitrator which was illegal, against law and without jurisdiction. Similarly, the orders passed by Deputy Registrar, Hisar and Joint Secretary, Haryana Co-operation Department, were also illegal and liable to be set aside. The defendant-Society was not entitled to recover Rs.59,655/- from the plaintiff, instead, it was recoverable from defendant No.2-Secretary of the Society. According to the defendant-Society, the entries in the cash- book were made by the plaintiff and in this regard award dated 24.1.1997 had been passed against him. Therefore, he was liable to pay R.S.A. No. 4089 of 2007 -3- Rs.59,655/- in the account of the Society alongwith interest. The award had become final and the Society wanted to recover the aforementioned amount with interest as per the award. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff remained posted as Salesman with the Society from 1987 to 1996. According to the plaintiff, Rs.1,94,356.90p. of the Society was with its Secretary, whereas according to the Society, the plaintiff after receiving the amount of Rs.59,655/- did not deposit the same in the account of the Society. The matter was referred to the Arbitrator, who vide his award dated 24.1.1997, held the plaintiff liable to pay the said amount alongwith interest. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff was dismissed by the Deputy Registrar, Hisar. Even the revision filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the Joint Secretary, Department of Co-operation. The plea of the plaintiff that the Society sent the case to the Arbitrator for the benefit of the Secretary, remains unsubstantiated as he did not explain as to how the order passed by the Arbitrator was illegal, null and void, etc. Moreover, it is the duty of the Salesman to look after all the sale of fertilizer and to keep its account. The award had been passed by a competent person/ authority. It had attained finality as the appeal and thereafter the revision filed by the plaintiff against the same stood dismissed. As such the jurisdiction of the Court was barred in view of Section 128 of the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984. R.S.A. No. 4089 of 2007 -4- The findings arrived at by the trial Court and upheld by the lower appellate Court are based on proper appreciation of the material evidence available on the file. These findings are neither perverse nor do they suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Therefore, they cannot be upset and, that too, in a second appeal. Various law points, as claimed by the appellant, much less any substantial question of law, do not arise for determination. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) September 14, 2009 JUDGE satish