- (1.) THESE are eight appeals against the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Udaipur, requiring respondents to pay up the amounts of money specified in these orders.
(2.) THE facts are that the appellant in all these cases made a requisition to the Registrar for the recovery of the aforesaid amounts from the respondents who are defaulting members. After making enquiries, the Deputy Registrar passed impugned orders under sec. 69 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1953. THE grounds taken in appeal are either that the Deputy Registrar should have included in his order under sec. 69 mention of the fact that respondents had mortgaged certain immovable properties with the appellant as security and that the amounts due from them were recoverable from the sale proceeds of these properties; or that the sureties of these defaulting members should have been made liable to pay the amounts due from the defaulting members. Shri Moti Lal, who has appeared before us as attorney of the appellant has asked for an adjournment on the ground that the counsel engaged in these cases by appellant is unable to attend. We do not think that an adjournment is at all justified. As a matter of fact, Shri Narendra Singh Chordia, Advocate, appeared before us stating that he was the brief-holder, but later on withdrew. We have carefully gone through the impugned orders and the grounds of appeal. We feel that these appeals are absolutely without merit and that the appellant has been ill-advised in preferring these appeals. Sec. 69 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1953 runs as follows - "69. Power to direct payment of dues - Notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter IX the Registrar or such other person as may be prescribed, may on his own motion or on the written requisition of a society or financing bank for the recovery of any loan due by a defaulting member after due enquiry, make an order directing payment by such member of the amount found to be due. " A plain reading of sec. 69 shows that all that the Registrar or the Officer duly authorised under sec. 69 is required to do is to pass an order directing the defaulting member to make payment if he is satisfied after due enquiry that the amount is due. The grounds of appeal do not mention that no due enquiry has been made or that the amounts stated in the impugned orders are incorrect. As a matter of fact, such objections would, if at all, have come form the respondents. What is contended in the grounds of appeal is that the impugned orders are defective, in so far as they do not mention the fact that the respondents had mortgaged certain immovable properties with the appellant, the sale proceeds of which should he adjusted against the demands, or that there is an omission to direct the sureties to pay the amount due from the defaulting members. Sec. 69 confers no such authority on the Registrar or Officer making an order under this provision. The manner of execution is laid down in sec. 67 of the Act which also is reproduced below - "67. Money how recovered - Every order passed by a liquidator under sec. 56 or by the Registrar or his nominee or arbitrators on disputes referred to him or them, under cl. (g) of sec. 56 or under sec. 61 or sub-sec. (3) of sec. 62 every order passed in appeal under sec. 64 and every order passed by the State Government, in appeal against order passed under secs. 56, 57 and 61 or sub-sec. (3) of sec. 62 and sec. 69, shall, if not carried out be executed. (a) On a certificate signed by the Registrar, by any Civil Court in the same manner as a decree of such court, (b) according to the law and under the rules for the time being in force for the recovery of arrears of land revenue, provided that any application for the recovery in such manner accompanied by a certificate signed by the Registrar or of any such sum shall be made to the Collector and shall be by any person or persons appointed and empowered under sec. 6 to sign such certificates. " The effect of secs. 67 and 69 read together is that the Registrar or the Officer duly authorised has merely to pass an order requiring the defaulting members to make payments after due enquiry, and in the event of the order not being carried out the Registrar or the Officer is required to file a certificate in a Civil Court or with the Collector for recovery in the manner set out in sec. 67. Thus the function of the Registrar or the duly authorised Officer under sec. 69 is, in the first place, to make a demand on the defaulting members and, in the second place, to move the competent authority under sec. 67 in case the defaulting member fails to make payment in terms of the order under sec. 69. In the result, therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the Deputy Registrar has not in any manner failed to exercise his powers under sec. 69 and that the grounds taken up in these appeals are misconceived and have no legal validity. With the above observations we dismiss these appeals. .;