Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Accordingly, the President, Maharashtra State Appellate Court heard both revisions and by the impugned order, the same having been allowed that this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed.

10] Mr.Kumbhakoni, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court has allowed the revision applications erroneously. The decision is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record. The learned President ought to have appreciated that the respondent bank made three applications seeking identical reliefs. Once all three applications were dealt with and rejected by reasoned order, there was no necessity to wp3234-71 of 2011.doc allow the revision application. A revision application is allowed only if the orders of the Court below are vitiated by any error apparent or perversity. Scrutiny of the records of the trial court by the Revisional Court while deciding revision applications does not give it unlimited and unrestricted powers and that too, to re-appreciate and re-appraise all materials. Once it is undisputed that consolidation was attempted by the respondent on three occasions and which failed and the dispute filed by the petitioner proceeded and was ripe for arguments, then, there was no occasion for the revisional court to have interfered with such orders. The Revisional Court was in error in taking assistance of the provisions of section 10 of CPC. Once the revisional Court was of the opinion that section 10 could not have been invoked by the petitioner to seek stay of the dispute filed by the respondent bank, then, the analogy applied for consolidating the suits is something which is impermissible in law. If disputes involve a common issue and between same parties and, there was a necessity to consolidate them, then, by the same logic, learned Judge should have granted the relief wp3234-71 of 2011.doc prayed under section 10. For all these reasons and in the light of the legal principles, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside. According to Mr.Kumkhakoni, the learned Judge should have appreciated that a dispute before Cooperative Court has to be tried like a suit and to that limited extent the civil court's jurisdiction is ousted. The trial of a dispute filed under section 91 of MCS Act, 1960 is on par with and by the same procedure of a suit before the Civil Court. In such circumstances, either both powers viz., for consolidation and stay of suits were available for the Court below or by the logic and reasoning of the learned President both could not have been invoked. For all these reasons, these orders should be set aside.

12] Equally, according to Mr.Tembe, the lower appellate court was in no error in reversing the judgement of the trial court on the application invoking section 10 of the CPC to seek stay of trial of the dispute of the respondent bank filed against the petitioner. Firstly, the court below has applied the same principles as has been applied by the Supreme Court. Further, it has been very clearly held by this Court in Balkrishna Vs. Jalgaon People Cooperative Bank reported in 1998 (2) Mh.L.J. 147 that a dispute filed in the cooperative court and a civil suit before a civil court are not identical proceedings. The disputes are filed under section 91 of MCS Act, 1960 and the Cooperative Court has discretion to refer such disputes to the wp3234-71 of 2011.doc civil court for bring tried as civil suit in certain cases and, therefore, the dispute before the cooperative court cannot be equated with a civil suit filed before the civil court. If this is the applicable principle, then, section 10 could not have been invoked at all. Apart therefrom, assuming that section 10 of CPC was applicable, the provisions of the same are mandatory and unless and until, all conditions stated therein are satisfied, the court has no power to grant stay in terms thereof. In the instant case, the important ingredients and conditions of the said provisions have not been satisfied and the lower appellate court was, therefore, right in reversing the order of the trial court staying the trial of the dispute filed by the respondent bank viz., Dispute No.92 of 2010. For all these reasons these petitions have no merits and they be dismissed.

Similarly, as far as recovery of monies are concerned, section 98 makes the aspect clear that orders passed by the authorities or the cooperative court shall, if not carried out, be deemed to be a decree of a civil court and shall be executed in the same manner as decree of such court. Therefore, at separate stages, the applicability of CPC albeit to a limited extent has been provided in the MCS Act. If that be the intent and purpose and if these provisions are read with the MCS Rules, then, it is absolutely clear that such of the provisions which enable the Cooperative Court to inherently exercise its powers to do justice have been engrafted and included. Their applicability is not in any manner ruled out. However, when it comes to section 10 of CPC, it is more than clear that one cannot lose sight of the fact that section 10 cannot be invoked by applying the tests as if the proceedings before the cooperative court filed by way of disputes are akin to a suit in a civil court. The CPC itself makes it clear in Part I that Courts wp3234-71 of 2011.doc subject to the provisions contained in the CPC have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting suits of which cognisance is either expressly or impliedly barred. Prior thereto sections 3 to 5 speak about applicability of CPC to proceedings before other Courts. The proceedings may be civil in nature but that does not mean that the Court trying them is a civil court and the proceedings are a "suit" within the meaning of CPC. A right to bring in a suit is an inherent right vested in the litigant and, therefore, while clarifying as to what would be the jurisdiction of the Civil court to try suits in section 9 read with the explanation, it would at once become clear by section 10 that the Court, which is a civil court, is mandated not to proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other court having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed or in any court beyond the limits of India, established or continued by the Central wp3234-71 of 2011.doc Government and having like jurisdiction or before the Supreme Court. The sweep of power under section 10 can by no means be read into the MCS Act and particularly section 91 to 98 thereof. The civil court's power to stay trial of subsequently instituted suits is thus available to the civil court. It is not specifically conferred on the cooperative court. That apart, in the peculiar facts of the present case, the learned Judge was in no error in rejecting the application.