The statutory notice requirement under Section 125 of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 does not apply to counter claims filed before a competent civil court.

ORDER :

The captioned petition is filed by the plaintiff assailing the order of the learned Judge passed on I.A.No.V filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Order VIII Rule 6(c) read with Section 151 of CPC to reject the counter claim filed by the defendant.

2. The facts leading to the case are as under:

Petitioner/plaintiff has instituted a suit in O.S.No.273/2020 seeking the relief of declaration of cancellation of registered lease-cum-sale deed dated 31.7.1993. The respondent/defendant on receipt of summons has filed written statement and has also set up a counter claim seeking an injunction not to interfere with defendant’s peaceful possession and also sought for a direction to direct the plaintiff-society to execute a registered sale deed.

3. The plaintiff having filed rejoinder to the counter claim has filed the present application in I.A. No. V seeking rejection of the counter claim on the ground that counter claim is not maintainable for want of statutory notice under Section 125 of Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959(for short “the Act, 1959”. The learned Judge on examining the rival contentions was not inclined to accede to the objections raised by the plaintiff in regard to maintainability of counter claim for want of notice under Section 125 of the Act, 1959. The learned Judge while rejecting the application has held that since the plaintiff has filed the suit seeking cancelation of lease-cum-sale deed, there is no need to issue fresh notice.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the prayer sought in the plaint as well as in the counter claim. I have also examined the order under challenge.

5. Before I advert to the facts, it would be necessary to examine the relief sought in the plaint by the plaintiff-Society and the counter claim set up by defendant. The prayer sought in the counter claim by the plaintiff’s Society reads as under:

“1. That, the Opponent Society be directed not to interfere in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the described suit property.

2. That, the Opponent may kindly be directed to execute the registered regular sale deed in the name of the Defendant/Counter claimant in respect of the suit property.

3. The cost of the suit may kindly be awarded.

4. That, such other and further reliefs as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be granted to the Defendant/Counter claimant, in the interest of justice and equity.”

6. Section 125 of Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act is culled out as under:

“125. Notice necessary in suits.-No suit shall be instituted against a co-operative 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 two months 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.”

7. On reading Section 125 of the Act, 1959 the said section clearly imposes an embargo in instituting a suit against a co-operative society or its officers in respect of any act touching the constitution, management or the business of the society until expiry of two months of notice addressed to a jurisdictional Registrar.

8. Section 125 of the Act, 1959 is akin to Section 80 of CPC. On reading Section 125 of the Act, 1959 it becomes obvious that same is enacted as a measure of public policy with the object of ensuring that before a suit is instituted against a Co-Operative Society, the jurisdictional Registrar should be afforded an opportunity to scrutinize the claim in respect of which the suit is proposed to be filed. The intent of Section 125 of the Act, 1959 is to enable the concerned authority to take immediate action and thereby avoid unnecessary litigation and save public time and money.

9. In t