IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.2932 of 1988 Date of decision: 8th December, 2010 The Rania Coop. Marketing-cum-Processing Society Ltd. … Appellant Versus Tara Singh and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Gobinder Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Davinder Singh respondent-defendant No.3 was employed with the appellant-defendant No.2 as a Salesman in the year 1974. On 24th October, 1974, after the death of Davinder Singh, plaintiff-respondent No.1 furnished a surety-bond and mortgaged his property. He also agreed to compensate the appellant-Society in case any loss or damage was caused by his son Davinder Singh. Davinder Singh allegedly embezzled the funds of the Society and vide an arbitration award he was held liable to make payment of Rs.98,016/-, failing which the amount was ordered to be recovered by auctioning the mortgaged property of the plaintiff-respondent No.1. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a suit and pleaded therein that he stood as surety only to the extent of Rs.10,000/- and had mortgaged his land, therefore, he cannot be fastened with a liability of more than Rs.10,000/-. Regular Second Appeal No.2932 of 1988 The Sub Judge (First Class), Sirsa, in his order dated 12th March, 1987 (Annexure P-2) held as under: “8. … … … The plaintiff has nowhere taken liability to the total amount of embezzlement by his son Devinder Singh-defendant No.3. To repeat again the plaintiff had time and again mentioned in the surety bond that he would be liable to make good of the loss to the extent of Rs.10,000/- in case of any loss caused by his son to the defendants/society. When the terms and conditions of the surety bond Ex.P.1 wherein it was time and again repeated that the plaintiff was liable to make good loss to the extent of Rs.10,000/- were brought to the notice of the ld. counsel for the defendants/society, he had to admit that the defendants/society was not entitled to recover the total amount of embezzlement effected by his son. A sum of Rs.10,000/- could only be recovered from Tara Singh, plaintiff.” After holding the liability of plaintiff-respondent No.1 to the extent of Rs.10,000/-, the suit was dismissed on the ground that no mandatory notice, as required under old Section 79 and new Section 124 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, was served upon the appellant-defendant-Society. Aggrieved against the same, plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed an appeal. The lower appellate Court, vide its order dated 17th September, 1988 (Annexure P-1) accepted the appeal and held as under: “8. In view of the foregoing discussion I hold that the award dated 9.11.81 is quite valid but the plaintiff-appellant is only liable to make good the loss to the extent of Rs.10,000/- only for which amount he stood surety for his son Davinder Singh and mortgaged his land. The findings of the learned Sub Judge, Sirsa on issue No.1 to this extent only are affirmed.” 2 Regular Second Appeal No.2932 of 1988 However, the finding that the mandatory notice was not served, therefore, the suit was not maintainable, was set aside by observing that service of prior notice, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not a condition precedent, as the only question which the Court was seized of, was regarding execution of the award. Thus, the suit was decreed by the lower appellate Court. Mr. Gobinder Singh Sandhu, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-Society, has failed to convince this Court as to how the liability of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 can be more than the surety bond. Neither any substantial question of law has been formulated nor arises, on the facts and circumstances of the case, for consideration of this Court. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE December 8, 2010 rps 3