SYNDICATE BANK TIRUCHIRAPALLI TIRUCHIRAPPALLI Vs. TIRUCHIRAPPALLI AUTOMOBILE SPARE PARTS CO OPERATIVE STORES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGAINST the dismissal of O.S. No. 116 of 1978 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tiruchirappalli, the plaintiff-bank has filed this appeal.

(2.) THE suit is for recovery of Rs. 17,496.30/with subsequent interest and costs. THE relief is claimed only against defendants 1 and 3. THE 1st defendant is a Co-operative Stores and it has gone into liquidation and so the liquidator thereof has been impleaded as the 3rd defendant. THE suit sum represents the money borrowed by said Co-operative Stores on pledging the goods of the 1st defendant. THE 2nd defen dant is the Co-operative Central Bank, to whom also the same goods were pledged for the money borrowed by the 1st defendant from it (2nd defendant). THEre is also a dispute as to who has got the priority, whether the plaintiff-bank or the 2nd defen dant over the above said goods pledged. That is why the 2nd defendant has been im pleaded.

(3.) THEN the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the suit should not be dismissed on the above said ground, but the plaint should be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the Liquidator for disposal under Section 87(2)(c) of the above Act. For this, the learned counsel for the appellant invoked Order 7, Rule 10(1) C.P.C. which runs as follows, ?, ?Subject to the provision of the Rule 10-A, the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted.? But the Liquidator certainly is not a court mentioned in the said Order 7, Rule 10, C.P.C. He is only an authority appointed by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies under Section 86 and controlled by the Registrar in the liquidation proceedings. Further Order 7 Rule 10 C.P.C. cannot be applied to the present case, because it cannot be said that the present suit cannot at all be filed in the Court before which it has been filed. The only thing that can be said is that only after getting the leave contemplated under Section 89, the suit could be filed. Order 7, Rule 10, C.P.C. would apply only when a suit is instituted in a wrong Court. That is not so in the present case. Therefore, I do not think Order 7, Rule 10, C.P.C. will apply to the present case.