PATHENA MANDAL CO-OPERATIVE STORES LTD Vs. MANGULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by some of the defendants against the order of the learned District Judge, Bharatpur, dated 19-10-1953, remanding the case for retrial.

(2.) The facts giving rise to it are that respondent No. 1 Mangulal filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2412/8/- in the court of the Civil Judge, Bharatpur, on 22-121951. His case was that in January, 1949, a co-operative society in the name of Pathona Mandal Co-operative Stores Ltd., was formed and got registered. The plaintiff purchased 25 shares of Rs. 100/- each and thus his total contribution was Rs. 2500/-. About 2 years prior to the institution of the suit, the registration of the society was cancelled and a liquidator was appointed. It was further stated that the said co-operative society had incurred losses and therefore each shareholder was required to pay Rs. 3/8/- as loss on each share. Thus, the total loss which came to the share of the plaintiff was Rs. 87/8/- and he was entitled to receive the remaining amount of Rs. 2412/8/- back from the society. It was alleged that defendants Nos. 2 to 26, who were members of the society, had colluded amongst themselves and they had withdrawn their amount without paying losses which came to their share. It was further alleged that they had taken away the plaintiff's money without any authority. It was, therefore, prayed that a decree for Rs. 2412/8/-be given against the defendants.

(3.) It seems from the record that the liquidator did not file any reply in the trial court. Some of the defendants, however, contested the case and one of their pleas was that a civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit in view of the provisions of Section 41(6) of the Bharatpur State Co-operative Societies Act No. 1 of 1915. This objection found favour with the trial court which dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by that decree dated 9-2-53, the plaintiff went in appeal which was heard by the learned District Judge, Bharatpur. It was held by the learned Judge that the suit was triable by a civil court and. therefore, he set aside the decree and remanded the case for retrial. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1, C. P. C.