RANGANATHAN Vs. CO OPERATIVE SUB-REGISTRAR SALE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of Mr. V. Raghavachari, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Muralidharan, learned counsel for the the second respondent and perused the records.

(2.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner (as per the prayer amended on 06. 11. 2007) seeks to challenge the Execution Proceedings in CEP No. 151 of 1984-85 dated 26. 8. 1997 on the file of the third respondent (who was impleaded on 06. 11. 2007)

(3.) THE petitioner was a driver in the Nellikuppam Municipality and at the time of filing the writ petition, it is stated that he was 52 years old and by now, he would have got retired from service. At the time when he was in the service of the Municipality, he became a member of the Nellikuppam Co-operative House Building Society and he availed loan of a sum of Rs. 12,000/- with 10. 75% interest. He also executed a registered Deed of Mortgage dated 24. 6. 1974. Subsequently, as he did not pay the instalment of the loan repayment properly, the second respondent initiated arbitration proceedings under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 [for short, 'tncs Act'] in A. R. C. No. 20/77. The petitioner is fully aware of the said proceedings and there has been some correspondence between the petitioner and the Municipal Commissioner and even in his letter dated 26. 10. 1993 addressed to the first respondent, he had referred to the execution proceedings initiated pursuant to the Award in E. P. No. 151/84-85. Instead of challenging the Award in the manner know to law, viz. , filing of an appeal under Section 152 of the TNCS Act before the Co-operative Tribunal, he had initiated a correspondence war with the Society stating that he has not received the copy of the Award and merrily continued to be a defaulter. It was only when a distraint notice was given by the Society on 28. 5. 1999 bringing the house property for sale, which advertisement was also published in newspaper Daily Thanthi on 05. 6. 1999, the petitioner chose to move this Court with the present writ petition. In fact, when the petitioner filed the present writ petition, this Court passed an order on 10. 6. 1999 stating that the sale can go on but the confirmation cannot be made until further orders.