The Kartarpur Cooperative … vs Gulzara And Another on 18 November, 2008

      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