ELIAMMA SEBASTIAN Vs. NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice was issued in this appeal, but it is noted that process fee was not filed. Today appellant, who appears in person, says that she cannot file process fee for service by all modes because the appellant is not a rich person and therefore notice be only issued by one method, i.e. by process server. In view of the fact of non-filing of the process fee, I have examined the case and have gone through the judgment of the First Appellate Court and as to whether Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC lies, i.e. whether or not there arises a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC for the appeal to be entertained.

(2.) The judgment of the First Appellate Court shows that appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondent No.2/Co-operative Society alleging illegal disconnection of water and electricity. Whereas the appellant/plaintiff pleads that she has paid all the charges but the Society claims that the charges are not paid. I am not going into the detailed merits of the matter, inasmuch as, the First Appellate Court has held that the disputes are between the appellant/plaintiff as a member of the Co-operative Society and the Co-operative Society, and hence the suit is barred by the provision of Section 70 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003.

(3.) The relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the First Appellate Court holding the suit to be barred on account of provision of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003, are paragraphs 9 and 10 and which read as under:-