SHASHIKALABEN ISHWARBHAI SUTHAR Vs. COMMISSIONER JOINT DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition requires to be finally disposed of at this stage considering the limited controversy involved in the petition. Hence, Rule. Learned advocates appearing for respective respondents are directed to waive service of Rule.

(2.) THE petitioners have challenged order dated 07. 10. 2008 made by respondent No. 1 rejecting the application seeking permission to proceed with the Civil Suit filed by the petitioners making a claim against respondent No. 2, Liquidator of Narmada Spinning Mill Ltd. . It is the case of the petitioners that deceased Ishwarbhai Laljibhai Suthar who had expired on 18. 04. 1997 was an employee of the Mill Company and having expired during tenure of his service is entitled to compensation claimed in the suit. Respondent authorities have wrongly denied such permission. It was submitted that respondent authority had come before this Court vide Special Civil Application No. 10654 of 2008 seeking a direction to the Civil Court to frame and decide preliminary issue raised by respondent authority in the very suit filed by the petitioners. Vide order made on 05. 09. 2008 this Court has held that the preliminary issue was required to be examined and the Civil Court ought to have considered the question of jurisdiction "before proceeding further with the suit". Therefore, according to learned advocate it was not justified on part of respondent authority to refuse permission under provisions of Section 112 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (the Act ).

(3.) ON behalf of respondent No. 2 it was submitted that the suit was brought belatedly almost after a period of eight years and that too without first obtaining permission under Section 112 of the Act. Therefore, if permission is granted it would tantamount to accepting the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to proceed with the suit. According to learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 permission was therefore rightly refused by respondent authority. Alternatively, it was submitted that Civil Court be directed to decide the preliminary issue first.