IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 111 of 2007(O&M) Date of Decision:18.11. 2008 The Kartarpur Cooperative Agricultural .........Appellant Service Society Ltd. Kartarpur Versus Gulzara and another ......... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Present: Mr.H.S.Baath, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rakesh Verma, Advocate for the respondent. **** Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for declaration to the effect that no amount is due to be paid by him to the appellant society and that the attachment of land and order regarding its sale by the appellant No.2 is illegal, arbitrary, void etc. with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the appellant from selling the said land. On merits both the Courts have found that the surety bond executed by the respondent was with regard to the Jatpur Cooperative Agricultural Service Society and that he had not executed any surety bond with regard to the Kartarpur Cooperative Agricultural Service Society. RSA No. 111 of 2007(O&M) -2- Both the Courts have also found that the respondent not being covered by the different categories of persons mentioned in Section 55 of the Cooperative Societies Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') this civil suit at his instance was maintainable. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the respondent stood as surety for his son who, being an employee of the Kartarpur Cooperative Agricultural Service Society, was liable to pay money to the appellant and valid awards had been passed against the said person. He is, however, not in a position to deny that those proceedings were initiated after the death of the son of the respondent. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the finding of fact regarding the respondent having never stood surety for his son during his employment with the Kartarpur Cooperative Agricultural Service Society is perverse or can be held to be not arising from the record. Even as regards the interpretation given to the ambit of Section 55 of the Act learned counsel has not been able to show me how the respondent was covered by the category of persons mentioned in that Section. Consequently I hold that the questions of law proposed do not arise in this appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE November 18, 2008 sunita