MOOL RAJ Vs. ANJUMAN IMDAD BAHMI BAFINDGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is directed against the recovery proceedings initiated by the Anjuman Imdad Bahmi Bafindgan, Kapurthala, hereinafter called the Society, against the petitioner Dr. Moolraj under the Patiala Recovery of State Dues Act (No. IV of 2002 Bk.) hereinafter called the Act.

(2.) THE facts disclose how sometime the process of Court can be abused to its utmost limit. In the year 1946, the petitioner raised loan from the Society in the sum of Rs. 5,000/ -. Thereafter he applied to the Society that he wanted to leave for another province and his house be sold and the debt due from him be recovered from the sale proceeds of the house. On 23-9-1946, the Society gave an award under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912. The execution was levied in the Civil court on the basis of this award. This led to a suit by the petitioner for permanent injunction that the award be not executed. The suit was decreed ex parte and that decision has become final as no appeal against it was preferred.

(3.) IN the year 1951, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, issued a certificate under the Act for recovery of Rs. 7,384/-, principal and interest. In pursuance of this certificate the property of the debtor was put to auction. This led to the second suit by the petitioner-debtor in the Court of sub-Judge 1st Class, Kapurthala, challenging the order of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, and his jurisdiction to proceed under the Act. This suit failed, and an appeal and a second appeal against that decision also failed. Thereafter, the petitioner raised objection before the Collector that the amount could not be recovered as State dues. The objection was dismissed by the collector. An appeal to the Commissioner and a revision to the Additional Financial commissioner also failed. Having failed in the Civil Courts and before the revenue authorities, the petitioner approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution, in C. W. No. 90 of 1958, which was dismissed in limine by this Court. Thereafter he moved the Supreme Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution. The facts on which this petition was grounded are identical with the petition which failed in this Court. An interim stay was granted by the Supreme Court, but later on when the petition was opposed by the opposite party, the stay was refused and the proceedings under the Act were allowed to go on. It is not known what fate the petition in the Supreme Court has met. The petition in the supreme Court is C. W. No. 40 of 1958. The present petition was file don 28-4-1960, on identical grounds and identical facts. It may be stated that no new fact has come into existence after the date of the dismissal of the petition in limine by this Court or after the date of the petition filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution in the Supreme Court.