Non-compliance with Section 125 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, renders a suit for a permanent injunction against a Co-operative society or its Officers in respect of any act touching the business of the society, not maintainable without issuing a notice as required by the Act.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal arises out of O. S No. 17/1978 filed by the plaintiff-appellant for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants fom distraining or interfering in any manner with the moveables of the plaintiff kept in the schedule premises and compelling the plaintiff in any manner to make payments and for costs

( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiff is that he had raised a loan from the 2nd defendant-Society. It was a secured loan in a sum of Rs. 4,000/- in the year 1961; that an award was obtained by the 2nd defendant against him in the year 1963 for a sum of Rs. 4,480. 47 ps. and subsequently he paid a sum of Rs. 5. 950/- and satisfied the award; that in spite of that, the 2nd defendant with his staff members surprisingly visited the schedule premises in which the plaintiff was residing and attempted to distrain the moveables of the plaintiff by force though they had no authority to do so. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit for a permanent injunction as stated above.

( 3 ) THE defendants resisted the suit.

( 4 ) THE trial Court raised the following issues : (1) Does plaintiff prove the payment of Rs. 5. 950/- in full satisfaction of the mid-term loan due to Service Co-operative Society, haralur as contended in plaint para 2 ? (2) Whether the plaintiff further proves the attempts of the defendants attaching his moveabies is illegal and without any authority as contended in plaint paras 4 and 5 ? (3) Is this present suit maintainable as contended in para 4 of the written statement of 1st defendant ? (3a) Whether the defendants prove that the sum of Rs. 5,500/- paid by the plaintiff as admitted by the defendants, has been appropriated towards the discharge of the loans referred to in para 3 other than that of the transactions pleaded by the plaintiff? (4) Whether the present suit is bad for non-joinder of parties ? (5) Has this suit cause of action ? (6) Is this present suit in time ? (7) To what reliefs the parties entitle ? (8) What decree or order ? there is no doubt that the issues are not happily worded. The trial Court answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff Accordingly, it granted a decree for permanent injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff.

( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the 2nd defendant went up in appeal before the Additional Civil judge, Tumkur in R. A, No 20/1981 In the appeal, the learned Appellate judge has held that the plaintiff had satisfied the award and nothing was due from him. However, a question of law was raised before the lower appellate Court that the suit itself was not maintainable as no notice as required by Section 125 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act (for short the 'act') was issued to the defendants.

( 6 ) IT was not disputed before the lower Appellate Court that no notice as required by Section 125 of the Act was issued. The lower appellate Court held that Section 125 of the Act attracted to the relief prayed for by the plaintiff and therefore, in the absence of a notice under section 125 of the Act, the suit could not have been instituted against the defendants. Accordingly, it allowed the appeal and set aside the Judgment and decree of the lower Court and dismissed the suit.

( 7 ) SRI C. N. Kamath, learned Counsel for the appellant contends that as no contention was raised in the written statement about the maintainability of the suit in the absence of a notice issued under Section 125 of the act, as such the same ought not to have been entertained by the first appellate Court.

( 8 ) IT is not possible to accept this contention. Pure question of law going to the root of the matter can be raised at any stage of the proceeding. Therefore, a contention which goes to the root of the matter affecting jurisdiction of the Court and for deciding the same no fresh evidence is required to be recorded, can very well be allowed to be raised. In the instant case, it is not the case of the plaintiff that he had issued a n