RAM KRIPAL Vs. DORI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal From Order has been filed by two of the defendants in a suit filed by respondent for the recovery of a certain sum from all the three defendants. On an objection being taken by the defendants regarding jurisdiction of the court, it was held that the suit was barred under Section 111 read with Section 70, U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. On appeal by the plaintiff, the said decision has been set aside. According to the order of the lower appellate court the plaintiff has been directed to first delete the name of respondent 3 from the array of defendants whereafter the suit will become cognizable by the Civil Court against the remaining defendants. Aggrieved by this order, defendants 1 and 2 have come up in appeal. The plaintiff respondent has also filed a cross-objection assailing the directions given by the lower appellate court and its other findings.

(2.) At the very outset, it may be stated that the order passed by the lower appellate court is totally unjustified and I need not impress that it is no part of court's duty to advise as to the parties against whom plaintiff ought to proceed in the suit. It is also not its function to direct the deletion of any of the parties' from the suit as directed by the order under appeal. It is entirely for the plaintiff to decide against whom he wishes to proceed in a suit, and, if necessary it is for the plaintiff himself to seek an amendment by deleting any name from the array of parties. Shri S. K. Verma, appearing for the respondent, has also very candidly conceded that the court had no power to give any such direction.

(3.) In the present case, the plaintiff came to the court with an allegation that he was a member of defendant society, which was referred to as bank in para 1 of the plaint. The plaintiff had an account with it since 1966 in which Rs. 10,000/- stood to his credit. Defendants 1 and 2 who are respectively the amin and supervisor of the Co-operative Society, had approached him and on their assurance that they will get back plaintiffs money lying in deposit with defendant 3 obtained his signatures on blank papers. It is alleged that a sum of Rs. 9,800/- had been illegally withdrawn by them from plaintiffs account on different dates in collusion with defendant 3 and its employees who were negligent and has committed misconduct. He, therefore, claimed that the society was also liable for the amount. While dealing with cause of action for the suit, it was alleged in para 12 of the plaint that defendant 3 carried on business at village Nizamabad within the jurisdiction of the court.