VAVILLAPALLI CHANDRA NAIDU Vs. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CHILAKALAPALLI PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 07-08-1996 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge. Bobbili in unnumbered C.M.A. of 1996, wherein he confirmed the order dated 25-07-1996 passed by the learned Principal District Munsiff, Bobbili returning the plaint in un-numbered suit of 1996.

(2.) The petitioner herein is the paid Secretary of Chilakalapalli Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, and he was suspended by order dated 16-04-1996 pursuant to the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the society-first respondent. It is stated that a show cause notice dated 09-04-1996 was issued to the petitioner calling upon the explanation within ten days as to why disciplinary action shall not be initiated against him. Petitioner has submitted his explanation on 18-04-1996. Meanwhile the Board of Directors passed a resolution on 16-04-1996 suspending him with immediate effect. The said order was served on the petitioner on 18-04-1996. Questioning the same petitioner filed a suit before the learned Principal District Munsif Bobbili. Learned District Munsif by order dated 25-07-1996 returned the plaint with a direction to file it in appropriate Court having jurisdiction. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal being C.M.A.No. Nil of 1996 before the learned Subordinate Judge Bobbili. Learned Subordinate Judge by the impugned order dated 07-08-1996 though agreed with the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that (the jurisdiction of the Court) under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code the Civil Court is competent to receive any suit and try the same and any order passed under Sec. 59 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (Act 7 of 1964) (for short 'the Act') is not appealable as per Section 76 of the Act, but held in view of the notification issued under G.O.Ms. No. 160, Agriculture and Co-operation (Co-op. IV) Department, dated 11-03-1993 the civil matters arising under the provisions of the Act relating to co-operative societies the tribunal constituted under the Act alone has jurisdiction to try the same, but not the civil Court at the first instance. The petitioner, if aggrieved by the suspension order the proper course would be to approach the tribunal constituted under the Act. At present the tribunal is constituted at Vijayawada. Therefore, the petitioner can approach the tribunal constituted under the Act. Once there is a Tribunal constituted under the Act, the petitioner cannot say that the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain this type of matters and accordingly rejected the appeal.

(3.) As seen from the provisions of the Act, the disciplinary matters are not covered by Section 61 of the Act. Section 76 of the Act does not provide any remedy of appeal against the order passed under Section 59 of the Act. Admittedly, the action initiated by the authorities suspending the petitioner by the impugned orders is only an order, which falls under Section 59 of the Act. There is no express bar in the Act against the filing of a suit in the civil Court concerning the matter. The only bar contained is under Section 121 of the Act for institution of the civil suit, where the Act provides settlement of disputes in Chapters 7 to 9. It is settled law that the civil Court's jurisdiction is barred only with regard to the settlement of disputes contemplated under Section 61 of the Act or wherefrom an appeal is provided under Section 76 of the Act. In the present case prima facie the suspension order passed by the first respondent is not an order either under Section 61 of the Act or appealable under Section 76 of the Act. The exclusion of jurisdiction of civil Court must be explicitly expressed or necessarily implied. If the impugned order touches the business of the society, then only the civil Court's jurisdiction is excluded under Section 61 of the Act. In view of the same prima facie the civil Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit against the order passed under Section 59 of the Act. Learned District Munsif and the learned Subordinate Judge erred in holding that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in question. Therefore, the orders passed by the Courts below in returning the plaint by the impugned orders are erroneous and the same are accordingly set aside. Learned District Munsif is directed to receive the plaint and number the suit and decide the same in accordance with law.