RSA No.3197 of 1984 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. RSA No.3197 of 1984 Date of decision: 09.01.2008. Smt. Savitri Devi ... Appellant Versus Punjab Land Mortgage Bank through Land Mortgage Bank, Sunam, Distt. Sangrur. ... Respondent Present: Mr. R.K. Battas and Mr.RD Gupta, Advocates, for the appellant. Mr. Amrjit Markan, Advocate,for the respondent. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): This is plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.10.1984 passed by the learned Additional District Judge II, Sangrur, whereby an appeal preferred by the defendant-respondent against the judgment and decree dated 15.04.1983 has been allowed and the suit filed by the present appellant dismissed. It is the admitted case of the parties that the plaintiff-appellant purchased the suit land in the Court auction. After the purchase of the property, the plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Sunam, claiming injunction against the respondent-bank on the ground that the bank has no connection with the suit property and that the bank intends to get plaintiff's 1/6th share attached and put to auction without any RSA No.3197 of 1984 -2- entitlement. The respondent-bank contested the suit and besides raising question of jurisdiction of Civil Court also raised other various objections and claimed that the property was mortgaged with the bank by Parkash Chand, Des Raj and Bhagwan Dass on 26.09.1972 for a consideration of Rs.3000/- as loan for installing tubewell by depositing the title deeds and the bank has charge over the property. The bank claimed charge over the land in dispute to the extent of Rs.4732.33 P. which was due and payable by Des Raj and Bhagwan Chand upto 08.06.1982. The trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession to the extent of 1/6th share out of land described in the heading of the plaint? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the service of notice u/s. 79 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, was essential upon the defendant before filing the suit, if so, its effect? OPD 4. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to RSA No.3197 of 1984 -3- file the suit? OPD 6. Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form? OPD 7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies as party to the suit? OPD 8. Relief. All the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff and the suit of the plaintiff came to be decree vide judgment and decree dated 15.04.1983. Aggrieved of the same, the defendant bank filed Civil Appeal in the Court of learned Additional District Judge II, Sangrur. The learned Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit, primarily on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction and the suit was barred under Section 82 ( c ) of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. It is against this judgment and decree of the learned Lower Appellate Court the present appeal has been preferred. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case. Mr. R.D. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has referred to the provisions of The Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Section 82 ( c) of RSA No.3197 of 1984 -4- the aforesaid Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in respect to the matters enumerated therein. Clause ( c) of Section 82 of the Act aforesaid, bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court where any dispute is required to be referred to the Registrar under Section 55 of the Act. Section 55 of the Act is reproduced as follows:- “55. Disputes which may be referred to arbitration:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any, touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society arises:- (a) among members, past member and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased member; or (b) between a member, past member or person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the society, its committee or any officer, agent or employee of the society or liquidator, past or present; or RSA No.3197 of 1984 -5- ( c) between the society or its committee and any past committee, any officer, agent or employee; or any past officer, past agent or past employee or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent, or deceased employee of the society; or (d) between the society and any other co- operative society, between a society and liquidator of another society or between the liquidator of one society and the liquidator of another society; such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute. (2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), the following shall be deemed to be disputes touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, namely:- (a) A claim by the society for any debt or RSA No.3197 of 1984 -6- demand due to it from a member or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not; (b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor where the society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor as a result of the default of the principal debtor whether such debt or demand is admitted or not; (c ) any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of the society. (3) If any question arises whether a dispute referred to the Registrar under this section is or is not a dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, the decision thereon of the Registrar shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court.” This section envisage disputes amongst members, past member or person claiming through a member, deceased member and the society or RSA No.3197 of 1984 -7- such like disputes which can be stated to be touching the constitution, management or the business of a Co-operative society, and to be referred to arbitrator. Sub Section (2) of Section 55 of the Act, further clarifies the nature of the disputes which are stated to be touching the constitution, management or the business of a cooperative society. It is not in dispute that any claim of the society with regard to the debts falls within the purview of constitution, management and business of the society. However, with a view to bring the dispute within the ambit of Section 55 of the Act, it is necessary that the dispute should be between a society and its members, past members or deceased members or amongst the members. In the present case, though the defendant-bank has mentioned that the property which is the subject matter in this case, was mortgaged with the bank but neither the mortgage deed has been produced on record to establish the factum of mortgage, nor any where it has been mentioned that Des Raj and Bhagwan Dass, the original owners of the property were the members of the society/Bank. In the absence of there being any material on record, the learned Lower Appellate Court should not have decided the question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court. There is nothing on record to show that Des Raj was the member of the defendant-bank. Even the mortgage deed has not been produced on record. Therefore,the findings of the learned Lower Appellate Court non-suiting the appellant for want of jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not sustainable in law and these findings are, accordingly, set aside. As a consequence, the case is remanded back to the learned Additional District Judge II, Sangrur, for decision on merits of the appeal. Mr.Markan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the respondent-bank had filed two separate applications one RSA No.3197 of 1984 -8- for leading additional evidence and another for framing of additional issues before the learned Lower Appellate Court, but these applications have not been decided by the learned Lower Appellate Court. That is not the matter in dispute before me particularly when the respondent-bank has chosen not to prefer any appeal or cross-objections on account of non- consideration/decision of these applications. Be that as it may, now the matter stands remanded to the learned Additional District Judge II, Sangrur, and it is open to the respondent-bank to press the applications in question, if the same are pending. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Additional District Judge II, Sangrur, for further proceedings on 15.02.2008. The Lower Court record, if received, be sent back to the Court concerned immediately. 09.01.2008. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES/ NO