LAKSHMUNAIDU Vs. SITARAMASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition, the question of jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar of Co-opertive Societies to issue an injunction under Section 66 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Ace (7 of 1965) (hereinafter called the Act) is involed. A Board of Directors was elected consisting of respondents I to 9. An election dispute was raised by the petitioner under Section 62 of the Act making certain allegations, viz., that abour 1, 500 persons who had applied were not enrolled as members and consequently the election is bad. the Deputy Registrar purporting to exercise powers under Section 62 (4), on the application of the petitioner passed an interim injunction, restraining the respondents 1 to 9 from tunctioning as Board of Directors of the Bobbili taluk Land Mortgage Bank, Against this order, an appeal was filed under Section 76, to the District Munsif. the District Munsiff held that inasmuchas Section 62 (4) mentioned the word 'interlocutory', it empowered the Registrar to pass interlocutory orders only which are similar to orders passed under Order 39 Rules 6 to 10, and that it must be deemed that the Legislature excluded the power to issue orders of injunction similar to order under Order 39 Rules 1 to 5. this Writ Petition is directed against that order.

(2.) Both the petitioner as well as the Government contend that the Deputy Registrar has pawer to issue interim injunctions also, and that the Munsif is wrong in holding that the Deputy Registrar has, no such power. the reasoningof the Munsif seems to be that the Civil Procedure Code is a general.law and inasmuchas Section, 62,(4), merely mentions 'interlocutory' orders, it must be deemed that the Legislature excluded orders of injunction. I am unable to accept this genral prpposition; Mr. Jagannadha Rao contends that inasmuchas Sec. 120 incorporates the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code in relation to summoning of witnesses.and documents and the conduct of trial, orders of injunction not having been incorporated, it must be assumed that the Legislature did not intend to, confer, that power, this line of reasoning, though sought to be put differently, nonetheless follows closely "the reasoning given by the Munsif for holding that the Deputy Registrar has no power to issue orders of injunction: Section 62 (4) is in the following terms:-

(3.) Since the mattet has been pending for a long time, there will be a direction that the enquiry should be concluded as expeditiously as possible, say within two months from the date of receipt of the records. the petition with these directions is allowed, and the order of the District Munsif-cum-Co- operative tribunal is quashed and that of the Deputy Registrar restored with costs against respondents 1 to 9. Advocate's fee Rs-/100-. Order quashed.