LAWS(P&H)-1983-4-60

DES RAJ Vs. THE LADWA COOPERATIVE MARKETING-CUM-PROCESSING SOCIETY LIMITED, LADWA, THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR/PEROKAR

Decided On April 27, 1983
DES RAJ Appellant
V/S
The Ladwa Cooperative Marketing -Cum -Processing Society Limited, Ladwa, Through Its Administrator/Perokar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Revision No. 1832 and 3100 of 1981 as common questions arise therein.

(2.) The Arbitrator appointed under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) gave an award in favour of The Ladwa Cooperative Marketing -cum -Processing Society Ltd., Ladwa, (hereinafter referred to as the Society) against several persons including Hukam Singh and Des Raj. These two persons were made liable to pay different amounts to the Society. The aforesaid two persons failed to pay the amounts found due from them under the award. Consequently, the Society applied to the Registrar for the issue of a certificate under Sec. 63 of the Act so that the award may be executed as a decree of the Civil Court. The Registrar granted the certificate and the Society applied to the Civil Court for execution of the award. When notices were served on the aforesaid two persons, they filed objections. The main objection which now survives for consideration is that there was no certificate issued by the Registrar under Sec. 63 of the Act and hence the award could not be executed as a decree. The Executing Court came to the conclusion that the Registrar granted the certificate. Some other factual objections were also raised which, on facts of the case, were decided against the plaintiff. By order dated 17.10.1981, the objections filed by Hukam Singh were dismissed and he has come to this Court in C.R. No. 3100 of 1981. The objections of Des Raj were dismissed by order dated 5.6.1981 and Civil Revision No. 1832 of 1981 has been filed by him in this Court against the aforesaid order.

(3.) Before me, it could not be seriously challenged that the Registrar did not issue certificate under Sec. 63 of the Act because the Court below has recorded a categorical finding that a photostat copy was placed on the record and the original order was shown at the time of hearing.