C.W.P.No. 3381 of 1990 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P.No. 3381 of 1990 Date of Decision : 26.11.2010 Sukhwinder Singh Petitioner. VERSUS The Commissioner (Appeals) etc. Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI --- Present:- Mr. M.S.Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Davinder Singh, Advocate, for Mr. Vanita Sapra, Advocate, for the respondents. --- 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? RITU BAHRI,J. The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned Award dated 1.9.1982 (Annexure P-3) and orders dates 25.7.1983, 29.7.1987 and 23.2.1989 (Anneuxres P-4 to C.W.P.No. 3381 of 1990 2 P-6) respectively. Shri Ranjit Singh respondent No.4 took a loan from the Devidaspura Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. ( hereinafter called the Society). He did not return the loan to the society. Respondent No.4 presented forged receipts projecting to be signed by the petitioner to show that he had given the money to the petitioner. Respondent No.4 by an application to the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies sought for appointment of an Arbitrator. Shri Rajinder Singh, Inspector, Co-operative Society was appointed as an Arbitrator. Petitioner submitted that he had not received any amount from respondent No.4 nor he had issued any receipt to him. The award was passed against the petitioner holding him liable for the total amount in dispute vide Award dated 1.9.1982. On appeal, the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Amritsar vide order dated 29.7.1983 (Annexure P-4) held that the petitioner and respondent No.4 were equally liable to the amount in dispute. Revision under Section 9 of the Act was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) by the petitioner and respondent No.4 vide order dated 29.7.1987 upheld the order of the Appellate Authority dated 25.7.1983. On an application being made by C.W.P.No. 3381 of 1990 3 respondent No.4, the Revisional Authority modified its order dated 29.7.1987 (Annexure P-5) by passing an order dated 23.2.1989 (Annexure P-6). By modifying this order, the Commissioner accepted the revision petition. The petitioner challenged the impugned Award dated 1.9.1982 (Annexure P-3) and orders dated 25.7.1983, 29.7.1987 and 23.2.1989 (Anneuxres P-4 to P-6) respectively in the present writ petition. Mr. M.S.Bedi, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner submits that he is aggrieved against the order dated 23.2.1989(Annexure P-6) on the ground that no review was maintainable on the application of respondent No.4. He has placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Deep Chand and others Vs. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings and another, 1964 Current Law Journal (Pb), 128. The ratio of the judgment in paragraph 13 is as under:- “ 13. Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, undoubtedly reserves to the court the inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court but this power, though undefined, and rightly so, in C.W.P.No. 3381 of 1990 4 my opinion, cannot be utilised for permitting a judicial or a quasi-judicial tribunal to vary and alter any order passed by it on the ground that it is later considered to be erroneous on the merits as indeed the existence of such wide power is rightly not canvassed by the learned Advocate General.” From the ratio of this judgment, the petitioner argued that the revisional authority had no power to review its own order. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has not been able to dispute the Full Bench Judgment. The order dated 23.2.1989 (Annexure P-6) is quashed. Order dated 25.7.1983 (Annexure P-4) and order dated 29.7.1987 (Annexure P-5) by which the Appellate Authority fixed the responsibility of Sukhwinder Singh petitioner and Ranjit Singh respondent No.4 equally is upheld.` The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. 26.11.2010 ( RITU BAHRI) Anoop JUDGE