S. B. SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) THE question which arises for consideration in these appeals is as to whether the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the Code ) has any application in the proceedings under the A. P. Co-operative societies Act, 1964 (for short the Act ).

( 2 ) THE 2nd respondent-Bank is a Cooperative Society registered under Section 7 of the Act. In terms of the bye-laws of the said society the members can borrow amounts from it. The recovery proceedings were initiated against the appellants in these appeals before the 1st respondent.

( 3 ) IN the said application the cause of action was said to have arisen on 6-8-1998 as would appear from its application which is in the following terms: the cause of action arose on 6-8-1997 i. e. , on the date of the respondent 1 approached the petitioner s bank for sanction of cash credit facility for rs. 98,00,000/- and when the respondent 1 executed promissory note in support of the cash credit facility, and when the petitioner s bank on 15-9-1999 got issued the legal notice to the respondents on their failure to repay the loan amount and the case is within the period of limitation.

( 4 ) ON or about 4-1-2001 an affidavit was filed by the 2nd respondent herein stating: that the petitioner is basically a cooperative society registered under section 7 of the A. P. Co-operative societies Act. The proposed respondent No. 4 namely mr. M. Mohan Reddy is the member of the petitioner-Society with registration No. 9972. The proposed respondent No. 4 having had created and floated a company i. e. , respondent no. 1 herein, and to promote such business had taken loan from the petitioner as member of the petitioner- society and he fell due. The respondent No. 1 herein is being only the creation of the respondent No. 4, and the respondent No. 4 is being in substance and reality the borrower from the petitioner as its member, the respondent No. 4 is as such the proper and necessary party to the above proceedings along with his creation the respondent No. 1 herein. Therefore, given this fact, the respondent No. 4 is needed to be made party to the above proceedings as the principal borrower and defaulter. As such, in the interest of justice and for proper adjudication of the matter it is just and essential to permit the petitioner to implead the respondent no. 4 in the array of respondents and to proceed against them, lest the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury. That due to inadvertence the respondent No. 4 was not made party to the proceedings earlier,

( 5 ) HOWEVER, in interlocutory application no. 22 of 2000 in ARC. No. 69 of 1999 which is the subject matter of Writ Petition No. 400 of 2001 it was further stated: i submit that Muthu Nitya Reddy is mortgager in the loan obtained by the 1st respondent. He is the owner of and the same has been mortgaged with our bank with an undertaking that, in case the loanee i. e. , the 1st respondent fails to discharge the loan amount along with interest, the property mortgaged can be put to auction to realize the due amount to the petitioner-Bank. Due to oversight, she was not made party to the proceedings. She is proper and necessary party to the proceedings as she offered her abovementioned property for creation of equitable mortgage. If she is added the case can be adjudicated and just decision could be arrived. Hence it is prayed that the Hon ble court may be pleased to implead the proposed respondent as 4th respondent and pass such other order or orders deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

( 6 ) APPLICATIONS seeking to implead necessary parties had been filed. Those applications were allowed and questioning the same writ petitions were filed before this Court. A learned Single Judge of this court held that the Code applies.

( 7 ) SECTION 61 of the Act provides for settlement of disputes by referring the same to the Registrar. The said provision reads thus:61. Disputes which m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document