CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts(1985) 07 P&H CK 0048

Tarn Taran Central Coop. Bank, Tarn Taran now the Amritsar Central Coop. Bank Ltd. vs Pandori Sidhwan Co-op. Society

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 8 July 1985 · Citation: (1986) 1 LLR 549 : (1986) PLJ 22 : (1985) RRR 24

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.N.Mittal, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision No. 42 of 1982

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 356 words

R.N. Mittal, J.

1.

This revision petition has been filed by the Amritsar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Amritsar, against the order of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Tarn Taran, dated 7.2.1981.

2.

Briefly, the facts are that the Tarn Taran Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Tran Taran, obtained an award for recovery of Rs. 33,067/ against the respondentsociety in arbitration proceedings under section 56 of the Punjab Cooperatives Societies Act. The Bank started execution of the said award in the Civil Court against the society. A request was made in the execution proceedings that the decretal amount be recovered by sale of the property belonging to Bua Singh, Kartar Singh, Balbir Singh and Mohan Singh sons of Buta Singh. It was alleged that the father of Bua Singh etc. had mortgaged the property with the society and the latter had mortgaged the same with the Tarn Taran Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Tarn Taran and therefore, the amount could be recovered from the said property. Bua Singh etc. filed objections to the effect that the decretal amount could not be recovered from their property as they were not made parties to the proceedings before the Arbitrator and no award was given against them. The objections were accepted and the execution application was dismissed against them. The petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.

3.

Mr. Puri has raised a preliminary objection that Bua Singh etc. have not been made a party to the revision petition and therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed on this short ground.

4.

I have duly considered the objection and find substance in it. There is no dispute that the petitioner has filed the present revision against the order of the Subordinate Judge, by which the objection petition of Bua Singh etc. was accepted. As such they are necessary parties to the present revision but they have not been impleaded as respondents. They cannot be allowed to be made a party now as the period of limitation for filing the revision petition has expired. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed on this short ground. No order as to costs.