THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO C.C.C.A. No. 44 OF 2000 Dated: 21.01.2011 Between: M/s Bharath Tube & Tin Printers .....Appellant AND The A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Ltd., Lalapet, Hyderabad & Ors. .....Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO C.C.C.A. No. 44 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: This Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 19.11.1997 in O.S. No. 942 of 1986 on the file of the Additional Judge, City Small Causes Court – cum- VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit. The relevant facts leading to the filing of this Appeal are as follows: The 1st plaintiff is a partnership concern carrying on its business under the name and style of Bharat Tubes and Tin Printers. The 2nd plaintiff is the managing partner of the 1st plaintiff concern. The plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,81,118.49 on the ground that they supplied tins costing Rs.5,87,370.85 to the 1st defendant, out of which the defendant is due an amount of Rs.87,901.19 to him besides the security deposit of Rs.15,000/- with 18% p.a. The defendants contended that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable as the plaintiffs failed to issue notice under Section 126 of the Co-operative Societies Act (for short ‘the Act’). The learned Additional Judge dismissed the suit holding that the business of the defendants is procuring of milk and distribution of the same to the public, and that the suit claim is related to the business of the society, as such, issuance of notice under Section 126 of the Act is mandatory. The learned Additional Judge further accepted the claim of the plaintiffs at para 24 of the Judgment, but however, dismissed the suit for want of issuance of notice under Section 126 of the Act. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Additional Judge, the appellants filed this appeal stating that the written statement has not been signed by a person, who is party to the said suit and therefore, it cannot be taken on record and the same cannot be looked into. He further contended that even though an additional issue is framed with regard to non-issuance of notice under Section 126 of the Act, the same was not pleaded by any of the parties nor the bye-laws of the society support the said case. Shri M.Dilip Rao, the learned Standing counsel for A.P. Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Limited, contended that the appeal is not maintainable for want of notice under Section 126 of the Act, as the plaintiffs concern is related to the business of the society. Admittedly, the 1st defendant filed written statement contending that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable for want of notice under Section 126 of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiffs that there were no pleadings about the non-issuance of notice under Section 126 of the Act cannot be accepted. A Division Bench of this Court in Jas Raj Ganeshmal Vs. A.P. Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Limited, Hyderabad[1] held that the suit filed by the authorised dealer against the respondents society for return of their security deposit without issuing notice under Section 126 of the Act is not maintainable. In the instant case also, the plaintiffs procured milk and distributed the same to the public, which relates to the business of the society. Therefore, it is mandatory to issue notice under Section 126 of the Act before filing of the suit. The trial Court rightly dismissed the suit. There are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial Court. The Appeal is therefore dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ V. SURI APPA RAO, J Date: 21.01.2011 Note: Issue C.C. in one week. B/o. tsk [1] 2004 (1) ALD 878 (DB)