VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE Liquidator of the Kotakpura Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd. Sandhawan, a society under liquidation, has filed the present appeal against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, dated 28.7.2001 dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein against the order dated 29.3.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Divn.), Faridkot, vide which the app-location moved by the appellant under Sections 58 and 59 read with Section 82 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act') for dismissal of the execution application filed by the decree-holder was dismissed.
(2.) THE decree-holder-respondent No. 1 herein filed a suit for recovery against the appellant and respondent No. 2 for recovery of sum due to it on account of supply of cotton bales to respondent No. 2 herein. During the pendency of the suit, respondent No. 2 herein went into liquidation vide order dated 26th of March, 1998 passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, and the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Faridkot, was appointed as a Liquidator of the mill. The Liquidator was impleaded a party to the suit. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff decree-holder and a decree for a sum of Rs. 24,85,531.74 along with future interest @ 1.5% per month from the date of filing of the suit till realisation was passed. The decree-holder filed execution application wherein an application was filed by the petitioner stating therein as per the provisions of Section 56 of the Act, whole assets of the society now vest in the Liquidator. It was further submitted that (under ) sub-section (c) of Section 59 of the Act the Liquidator is to decide the question of priority arising between the claimants. It was further submitted that under Section 82 of the Act, no Civil or Revenue Court would have the jurisdiction in respect of any matter concerning winding up and dissolution of a Co-operative Society. Sub-section (2) of Section 82 of the Act further provides that no suit or proceedings relating to the business of the said society shall be proceeded with or instituted against the Liquidator. It was the further case of the appellant that Liquidator had invited claims from the claimants through Public notice and decree-holder has put his claim before the Liquidator. The appellant further submitted that all the assets and liabilities were being investigated by the Liquidator so as to settle the same as per provisions of the Act. The jurisdiction of the executing Court to decide the claim of the decree-holder was also disputed and accordingly a prayer was made that the execution application be dismissed. The decree-holder contested the objections filed by the appellant and it was claimed that the appointment of the Liquidator did not affect the rights of the appellant in execution of a lawful and valid decree which was already passed in favour of the decree-holder. It was further claimed that the judgment and decree operates as res judicata and, therefore, is binding on the parties. It was also claimed that the judgment-debtor had not taken objections in the main suit and now they are estopped by their act and conduct from raising these objections. It was further the case of the decree-holder that it was only the court passing the decree, has to take the decision on the execution application. It was also disputed that the provisions of Section 82 of the Act are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It was further claimed that the dispute in the present case was not covered under the provisions of the Act and it was not touching with the business of the society. It was also claimed that the decree-holder submitted his claim before the Liquidator. However, no action on the said claim has been taken. Thus, it was claimed that the Court had the jurisdiction to execute the lawful and valid decree.
(3.) THE learned executing Court as well as the learned Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the dispute in this was regarding the purchase of cotton by the society from the decree-holder and the said amount was not paid by the society and, therefore, the transaction could not be said to be relating to the business of the society so as to attract the bar under Section 82 of the Act. The Courts further came to the conclusion that the executing Court could not go behind the decree and, therefore, rejected the objections.;