R. BAYAPU REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is filedby the plaintiff in the unnumbered suit in G. R. No. 1389, dated 15-3-1994 against the orders of the Principal District Munsif, yellamanchili dated 26-7-1994 by which the plaint filed by him was rejected under Order 7 Rule ll (d) C. P. C.

( 2 ) THE petitioner had filed the suit against the respondents 1 to 3 seeking the relief of declaration that the loan No. 24403, dated 30-7-1992 and another loan No. 24676, dated 4-8-1992 said to have been granted by the first respondent society to him are null and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding against him and his properties for realising such loans. The Office took an objection in the lower court that the suit is not maintainable for want of notice under Section 126 of A. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short the Act ).

( 3 ) AFTER hearing the contentions of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff the lower Court came to the conclusion that the suit was not maintainable for want of notice under Sec. 126 of the Act 1964 and as such the plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule11l (d) C. P. C. Questioning such orders of the lower court the present revision is filed by the plaintiff.

( 4 ) HEARD both sides.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner firstly tried to contend that the notice under Sec. 126 of the Act 1964 is not mandatory in a suit of the present nature, that the suit is not filed by him rein ting to any management or business of the first defendant society or touching its constitution and that therefore the lower Court has erred in rejecting the plaint on the ground that notice under Sec. 126 of the Act 1964 is not issued. But such contention raised before the lower Court was not accepted and rightly so in my view. Section 126 of the Act states that no suit shall be instituted against a society or any of its officers in respect of any act touching the constitution, management or the business of the society until the expiration of sixty days next after notice in writing has been delivered to the Registrar, or left at his Office, stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left. In the present case, it is clear from a perusal of the plaint and the averments made therein that the plaintiff is questioning the validity and legality of two loans alleged to have been granted to him by the first defendant s society contending that no such loans were, in fact, borrowed by him that the respondents committed fraud upon him and obtained his signatures in some blank papers and subsequently fabricated the relevant documents to evidence the loan transactions and that therefore the relief of declaration that such loans are null and void may be granted. Even though it is alleged in the plaint that the employees of the defendant committed fraud upon him by obtaining his signatures in some blank papers, the relief prayed for in the plaint relates only to the loans said to have been sanctioned by the first respondent society to the plaintiff. As a matter of fact, even prior to the filing of the suit a notice was issued by the plaintiff to the society by way of reply to a notice issued to him by the society that the plaintiff had borrowed such loans from the society and tha t he is still liable to discharge those loans. It is clear from such circumstances that the suit is filed only to question the validity and legality of such loans said to have been granted to him. When the suit is of such a nature regarding the validity of the loan said to have been granted notice under Section 126 of the Act is mandatory inasmuch as the relief prayed for in the plaint can be said to be touching the business of the society as the act of granting and collecting loans will be in the course of business of such society. Therefore, as p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document