IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932 CRP.No. 71 of 2006() -------------------- CMA.8/2002 of SUB COURT, QUILANDY OS.177/2002 of MUNSIFF COURT, QUILANDY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: ---------------------------------------- P.K.SASIDHARAN, S/O.KELU, KALATHINGAL HOUSE, BALUSSERY AMSOM, DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR SRI.K.P.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE OF KERALA LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, P.B.NO.407, KANNUR. 2. M/S.SREEKANTH FERTILISERS, 10/33, CHINNATHAMBI COUNDER STREET, KUNITTIPATHI P.O., COIMBATORE-641 032. ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.71 OF 2006 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of July, 2010 O R D E R Plaintiff in a suit for money is the revision petitioner. His suit O.S.No.177 of 2000 of the Munsiff Court, Koyilandy was dismissed by the learned Munsiff by judgment dated 30.1.2002, holding that the suit is not maintainable as barred under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, for short the 'Act'. Challenge against the dismissal of the suit preferring an appeal C.M.A.No.8 of 2002 was turned down by the learned Sub Judge, Koyilandy confirming the dismissal of the suit. Revision is directed against the concurrent decisions rendered by both the courts below that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute canvassed in the suit. 2. Sum and substance of the plaintiff's case is that he was a distributor of fertilizer goods, and as an agent of the 2nd defendant such goods were distributed through the distributor, C.R.P.NO.71/06 2 the 1st defendant, a Co-operative Society. The goods distributed were found to be of inferior quality and so much so, he had demanded for replacement of the goods but, it was not complied with. Plaintiff therefore sought for a decree for realisation of the amount due, as having been sustained by way of damages on account of the supply of inferior quality of fertilizer goods by the 2nd defendant, through its distributor, the 1st defendant. A sum of Rs.25,702.50 was claimed jointly and severally from both the defendants in the suit. The 2nd defendant remained ex parte. The 1st defendant, Co-operative Society resisted the suit contending that the dispute canvassed squarely fell within the ambit of the Co-operative Societies Act, and so much so, the competent authority to determine such a dispute is the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, and the civil court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such a dispute. Upholding the contention raised by the 1st defendant, after trial, the suit was dismissed, and it was confirmed in appeal by the learned Sub Judge as well. C.R.P.NO.71/06 3 3. I heard the counsel for the revision petitioner and also the 1st defendant Co-operative Society. It was contended before me by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that essentially the dispute involved in the case was between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant and the cause of action for the claim in the suit related to the supply of inferior quality fertilizer goods by the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant was impleaded as a party in the suit only for the reason that it was through the 1st defendant, the goods were distributed since that defendant was the distributor under the contract arrangement with the 2nd defendant. The dispute canvassed in the suit was not covered by the mechanism provided under the Co-operative Societies Act, and the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit, is the submission of the counsel. I cannot agree. Perusing the plaint, it is seen that the plaintiff was bound to pay the sum for the goods supplied through the distributor Co-operative Society. Other than producing a letter purported to have been issued by the 2nd defendant, no other material was produced by the plaintiff to show what was its agency arrangement, if any, with C.R.P.NO.71/06 4 the 2nd defendant. Even assuming that the society was the agent of the 2nd defendant, the manufacturer of the fertilizer goods, that would not absolve the liability of the plaintiff arising from collection of the goods distributed by the 1st defendant. In case, the plaintiff has any claim for damages as against the manufacturer, the 2nd defendant, he can file a suit as against that defendant alone but not seek a decree jointly and severally as against both the defendants including the 1st defendant Co-operative Society. The allegation raised in the plaint would show that the 1st defendant Co-operative Society had demanded money for the goods supplied. In fact, the plaintiff had issued cheques in advance and those cheques on presentation, had been dishonoured for insufficiency of funds in the account of the plaintiff. It is evident, to avoid the liability arising from the supply of the fertilizer goods distributed by the 1st defendant Co-operative society, for which the plaintiff had issued cheques as well, the suit had been filed after dishonour of such cheques. It is futile on the part of the plaintiff to contend that the dispute canvassed in the suit, claim for damages, was only as against the C.R.P.NO.71/06 5 2nd defendant, and the Co-operative society, 1st defendant, has been impleaded as a proforma of party when the plaintiff has sought for a decree jointly and severally against both the defendants. On the basis of the allegations raised in the plaint with reference to the transaction involved, whatever be the merit of the case canvassed by the plaintiff, it is seen, the dispute squarely falls within a dispute as defined under Section 2 (i) of the Co-operative Societies Act, and the only competent authority to determine such a dispute is the Registrar of the Co-operatives Societies as correctly found by the court below. There is no merit in the revision, and it is accordingly dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp C.R.P.NO.71/06 6