PAILI NARAYAN RAO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has asked for a writ or certiorari for quashing an award made against him under the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act (11 of 1952) as affirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities.

(2.) ON 2-7-58, it was alleged by the Garbandha Co-operative Society, that the petitioner took a loan of Rs. 1,500/ -. The opposite party No. 2 and one Appanna das not impleaded in this proceeding stood as sureties. It appears that Appanna das was the then President of the society. On 10-9-60, the society filed a dispute before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies for realisation of the money with interest in all Rs. 1892. 38 and the said dispute was registered as Dispute Case No. 334 of 1960. 61. The petitioner who was the defendant No. 1 in the dispute appeared and admitted his signature in the loan application, hut denied to have received the loan. He also disputed his signature against the relevant entry in the cash book which was relied upon by the plaintiff-society. The defendant No. 2 went ex parte and the defendant No. 3 appeared and indifferently contended that he did not remember whether he was in fact a surety for the transaction. The original authority passed an award as prayed for. Upon appeal the deputy Registrar directed remand of the proceeding to the original forum for a further determination. The original loan bond had not been produced. The appellate authority, therefore, called upon the plaintiff-society to prove the same. A revision was carried against the said order of remand and the Registrar vacated the remand order and sustained the award of the original Court. The petitioner's revision before the State Government was disposed of without hearing him. Therefore, he challenged the propriety of the disposal of the revision petition before this Court in a writ application bearing No. 129 of 1964. This Court quashed the revisional order by judgment dated 4-12-68 and called upon the Secretary in the Department of Co-operation of the State of Orissa to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving the petitioner an effective opportunity to place and represent his case. The matter was disposed of by the Secretary afresh by his order dated 9-5-69 and he came to hold that the award as upheld by the Registrar was proper. The present writ application is directed against the final decision of the State government dated 9-5-69 in the aforesaid revision case.

(3.) MR. Ramdas for the petitioner contended that it was obligatory for the plaintiff-society to produce the loan bond and as the plaintiff-society had not laid the foundation for receiving secondary evidence the plaintiffs claim should have been dismissed. The revisional authority should not have over-looked the fact that the loss of the loan bond had not been pleaded upto that stage and for the first time such a plea was advanced when the proceeding was in revision. He next contended that there having been clear denial of the signature in the cash book which alone was the document produced by the plaintiff in support of the claim of advancement of the loan, the revisional authority should have directed that document to be examined by an expert and should not have taken the responsibility upon himself. It is contended that the Secretary to Government was not aware of Telegu writings and as such comparison by him of the signature in the cash book with the admitted signature in the loan application was not justified. Reliance is placed in support of such a proposition on a decision of the Madras high Court in AIR 1956 Mad 566 (C. Silva Bai v. J. Noronha Bai ).