DIN DAYAL SINGH Vs. BIHAR STATE CO OPERATIVE MARKETING UNION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a decree-holder's appeal against concurrent orders of the Courts below holding his execution petition as not maintainable and dismissing it. The appellant was a share-holder member of the Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union, the respondent. He also took contracts for doing certain works for the respondent. As there were differences as to the amount payable to him for the said work a dispute arose under Section 48 of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The claim of the appellant was, however, rejected by the District Co-operative Officer. Against that order the appellant preferred an appeal which was heard by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society (Judicial), The Deputy Registrar allowed the appeal and passed a decree for Rs. 28,143.68 P. against the respondent. The appellant levied execution before the Execution Munsif, Patna. The respondent went in revision to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, against the order of the Deputy Registrar. The Registrar modified the order of the Deputy Registrar reducing considerably the amount decreed in favour of the appellant. The appellant, however, did not amend his execution petition in the light of the order passed by the Registrar or did he file a copy of the order of the Registrar.

(2.) An objection was raised on behalf of the respondent that the execution case was not maintainable for the decree of the Deputy Registrar had merged in the decree of the Registrar and that decree alone could be executed. The contention of the appellant was that no revision lay to the Registrar against the order of the Deputy Registrar and the order and decree of the Registrar modifying the order and decree of Deputy Registrar were without jurisdiction. The Execution Munsif upheld the contention of the respondent. Thereafter there was an appeal by the appellant to the District Judge which was heard by the Additional Subordinate Judge 6th Court, Patna, who confirmed the order of the Execution Munsif and dismissed the appeal.

(3.) Mr. Janardan Sinha appearing for the appellant in this Court has contended that an order passed on appeal by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) under Section 48 of the Act was final and could not be revised by the Registrar in exercise of revisional powers conferred upon him under Section 56 of the Act. According to Mr. Sinha, under Section 56 of the Act the Registrar can revise orders passed under Section 44 of the Act and not other sections of the Act and even if it is held that the Registrar in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Section 56 of the Act can revise orders passed under sections other than Section 44, he cannot revise orders passed under Section 48 of the Act. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent it has been contended that power of revision conferred upon the Registrar under Section 56 of the Act is wide enough to apply to orders passed under all sections of the Act including Section 48. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on a Bench decision of this Court in Shahebgunj Motor Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar, 1972 BLJR 455 = (AIR 1973 Pat 77). In that case the Registrar had revised an order passed under Section 11 of the Act and it was held that he had power to do so under Section 56 of the Act.