DWARKA PRASAD Vs. TRADERS GO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal relating to an order passed in regard to as objection petition under Section 47, Civil P.C. The facts of the case are that the Traders-Co- operative Bank Ltd., Patna, had lent Rs. 1420 to one Dwarka Prasad, the pre. sent appellant. In 1931 the Bank obtained an award against the appellant and his sureties for this debt. The award was made on 3 June 1931, by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, under Rule 12(4) of the Rules framed by the Local Government under Section 43 of the former Act 2 of 1912. The award was for Rs. 1420 as principal, Rs. 73-15-0 as interest and Rupees 73-15-0 as penal interest, and provided that future interest at the rate of Rs. 10-8-0 per cent, per annum together with all costs up to the date of realization should be payable. In regard to this award Execution Case No. 2205 of 1932 was filed in the Court of the Second Munsif at Patna, but it was dismissed on 30 June 1933, apparently for default of the decree-holder.

(2.) There is nothing before us to show what happened between the parties from June 1933 until January 1938, when, on 3 January 1938, a second award was passed by the Assistant Registrar, this time under the new Co-operative Societies Act (6 of 1935). This award was for Rs. 2215.2-0 on account of principal and interest. On 19 January 1938 an execution case was started upon this award in the Court of the Munsif at Patna, and on 10 February 1938, the appellant filed a petition of objection under Section 47, Civil P.C., taking the ground that the second award was a complete nullity and could not be executed as the Assistant Registrar had no jurisdiction to make two awards for one and the same debt. This objection succeeded before the learned Munsif; but on appeal the learned Additional District Judge, Patna, set aside the Munsif's order and dismissed the petition of objection.

(3.) Having regard to the provisions of Section 57(3) of the Act of 1935, it is evident that the appellant cannot possibly succeed in his objection unless he can show that the award of the Assistant Registrar was wholly without jurisdiction. Section 57(3) is in the following terms: No order of the Local Government, District Judge, Registrar, a person appointed to assist the Registrar, liquidator or an arbitrator or arbitrators, purporting to be one, which under any provision of this Act is declared to be final, shall be liable to be challenged, set aside, modified, revised, or declared void in any Court, upon merits or upon any ground whatsoever except want of jurisdiction. The award, or rather the order, of the Assistant Registrar, with which we are concerned in the present case, is an order under Section 48 of the Act; and Clause (9) of that Section provides that: Save as expressly provided in this Section, a decision of the Registrar, under this Section, and subject to the orders of the Registrar on appeal or review, a decision given in a dispute transferred or referred under Clause (b) or Clause (c) of Sub-section (2), shall be final.