JAGDISH Vs. RANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants' civil revision directed against the orders of the Courts below whereby defendants has been restrained from implementing the order dated 1-2-1993 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Hissar, vide which the Deputy Registrar had set aside the election held on 19-11-1992.

(2.) Tn brief, the facts are that the election of the Managing Committee of Kharia Cooperative Credit and Service Society Limited, Kharia, Tehsil Rani, District Sirsa (hereinafter referred to as the Society) was held on 19-11-1992, The petitioners challenged the election before the Prescribed Authority under Sections 102/103 of the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (for short the Act). The Deputy Registrar, after hearing the parties concerned and on perusal of the record, vide order dated 1-2-1993, set aside the election held on 19-11-1992 and ordered that fresh election be held in accordance with law. Pursuant to the direction, fresh elections were held in which the plaintiffs too participated on 19-4-1993 and a new Managing Committee came into existence. Plaintiffs, dissatisfied with the decision of the Deputy Registrar whereby election held on 19-11-1992 had been set aside, filed a civil suit challenging the order dated 1-2-1993, Along with the suit, they also made an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restraining the defendants from implementing the order dated 1-2-1993 tiil the decision of the suit. Vide order dated 23-4-1993, the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Sirsa allowed the prayer of the plaintiffs and restrained the defendants from implementing the order dated 1-2-1993 He also ordered that the Managing Committee elected on 19-11-1992 would continue to manage the affairs of the Society and no other person would interfere in the management of the same. In appeal, the Additional District Judge, Sirsa affirmed the order of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Sirsa. The present civil revision is by the defendants.

(3.) Counsel for the defendants has contended that the learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court have erred in law in entertaining the suit which is specifically barred under the provisions of the Act.