NALAGARH DEHATI CO-OPERATIVE TRANSPORT SOCIETY Vs. SURAJ MANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are six Execution Second Appeals and have been directed against the judgment of the District Judge, Solan who has upheld in appeal the judgment of the Senior Sub-Judge and thereby dismissed the objections of the appellant preferred under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, The facts arising out of these appeals are not controverted and may, in brief, be stated as follows.

(2.) Under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, a dispute arose between the appellant and the respondent in respect of certain demand placed by the respondent upon the appellant and such disputes were referred to arbitration and awards were given against the respondent. Under Section 63 (a) of the Act the awards were deemed to be a decree of a civil court and were executed in the same manner as decree of such court. Accordingly the execution was solicited in the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge and after the necessary step of attachment etc., the property belonging to the appellant was likely to be sold in auction. At that stage objections under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, were filed by the appellant and in these objections it was asserted that no dispute in the eye of law existed within the meaning of Section 55 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, or its corresponding Section 72 of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 which could be referred to the arbitrator. Therefore, the award was a nullity and it was even without jurisdiction. It was also stated that there was a collusion between the arbitrator and the respondent. Besides a legal notice was not given to the appellant and as such the award was a nullity. The learned Senior Sub-Judge refused to entertain the objections merely on the ground that as execution Court he could not go behind the decree. The appellant came in appeal before, the District Judge; but there too he remained unsuccessful. Now the present second appeals are filed against the judgment of the learned District Judge.

(3.) It is reiterated in second appeals that there was no dispute within the meaning of Section 72 which could be referred to the. arbitration under Section 73 of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1968. The award was a nullity and also without jurisdiction. A legal notice was not given to the appellant by the arbitrator. Besides, it is also contended that the issues framed by the Courts below were wrong. Another formidable objection is taken in second appeal with reference to Section 87 of the Act inasmuch as the said section has been amended by the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1972 and Clause 1 (a) of Section 87 has been deleted and the only mode of execution prescribed is by the Collector under a certificate signed by the Registrar for recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue, In other words, contends the appellant, the award is no longer to be deemed a decree of the Civil Court and as such cannot be executed in the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge.