AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I.S. Tiwana, J.—This petition disposes of two Revision Petitions Nos. 1050 and 1051 of 1989 in which two different but similar orders are impugned. For facility of reference only the facts stated in the first order i. e. C. R. No. 1050 of 1989 are adverted to for purposes of this order.
The respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the recovery of Rs. 42,403.57 sought to be effected from them is illegal and was barred by time. Till the decree of their claim, they also wanted an injunction to be issued restraining the petitioner defendants from recovering the said amount by way of interim relief. The same was though dismissed by the trial Court, but has been allowed by the lower Appellate Court. This is how the petitioners are now impugning the said order.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that the lower Court has failed to take notice of the all important factual and legal aspects of the matter. It is beyond dispute that the recovery sought to be effected from the plaintiff respondents is on the basis of an award passed by the Arbitrator under the Punjab Co operative Societies Act, 1961, in favour of the petitioner. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to look into the validity of any such award is specifically barred by sub section (3) of Section 82 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, which reads that "safe as provided in this Act, no order, decision or award made under this Act shell be questioned in any Court on any ground whatsoever". In the face of this mandate of law, the respondents cannot possibly be treated to have any prima facie case at this stage Therefore, to my mind, they were not entitled to the interim relief which has been granted to them by the lower Appellate Court. I, therefore, allow this petition and set aside the impugned order dated 30th November, 1988, but with ho order as to costs.