Amit Rawal, J. - (1.) Appellant-Plaintiffs are aggrieved of the judgment and decree rendered by learned trial Court dismissing their suit seeking declaration to the effect that attachment order of their land measuring 26K-6M and 2K-2M is illegal, null and void and that rapat No. 341 dated 12.4.2006 and rapat No.342 dated 12.4.2006 entered in their revenue record are also liable to be set aside. The appeal preferred against the said order has also been dismissed.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the declaration has been sought on the premise that plaintiffs stood surety for Shamsher Singh son of Mastan Singh r/o village Cheema, Tehsil Jagraon who was working as Secretary in the Cheema Agricultural Society Limited, Cheema vide affidavit dated 22.4.2004. It was included in the said affidavit that plaintiffs were not responsible for any fraud or embezzlement committed by Shamsher Singh. One Banta Singh son of Hoshiar Singh vide affidavit dated 12.9.2003 stood surety for aforesaid Shamsher Singh for any receipt whose payment has not been made after the date of execution of affidavit dated 12.9.2003. The authorities, attached the aforementioned property of the plaintiffs on the ground that Shamsher Singh had committed certain embezzlement as some amount was outstanding. He submits that aforesaid attachment order has been passed on the basis of some previous proceedings between Shamsher Singh and the society. The trial Court much less the lower Appellate Court has misconceived and misconstrued the provisions of Section 82 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) by holding that the jurisdiction of the civil court was expressly barred. He submits that Section 82 of the Act would not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case as it only deals with the proceedings held between the members and the society. He submits that had the embezzlement been made after 22.04.2004, the plaintiffs would have been certainly liable but not liable for the transactions which had taken place prior to date i.e. 22.4.2004. In support of his contention he relies upon Central Bank of India v.Virudhunagar Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. and others, 2016 3 CivCC 305(S.C.).
(3.) On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per the provisions of Section 82 of the Act the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred as mandatory notice under Section 79 of the Act was liable to the served upon the defendant-respondents which was not done. He does not dispute the contents of the affidavit vide which the appellant-plaintiffs stood surety for the acts and conduct of Shamsher Singh post 22.4.2004. He submits that both the Courts below rightly declined to interfere into the controversy owing to the jurisdictional error.;