JUDGMENT :- This Appeal is at the instance of unsuccessful defendant, a registered Co-operative society, challenging the judgment and order dated 14.2.1994 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.113/1994 arising out of dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No.39/ 1991 by the Court of learned Civil Judge, J.D. Chikhli.

2. The plaintiff had instituted the suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge, J.D. Chikhli, Dist. Buldana, to recover a sum of Rs.15,828/- from the Jijamata Sahakari Sugar factory, on the ground that it was part of its business to supply sugarcane for the purpose of sowing (Bene) to the farmers and to accept sugarcane for the purpose of production of sugar. The plaintiff had, therefore, appointed some trucks for the transportation of sugarcane from the field of farmers to the factory or to supply sugarcane for farmers for sowing purposes. The subordinate office of the defendant society at Chikhli had called tender to appoint trucks pursuant to which the plaintiff was appointed to supply sugarcane for sowing to places like, Mera, Dhad, Utarapeth for a consideration of Rs.350/- per day as the truck charge and the society agreed to bear other charges like diesel, oil etc. within one month after completion of work.

3. The plaintiff performed his part of contract during the period between 2.2.1988 and 29.9.1988 by using his truck MWD-7270, for which sum of Rs.11,880/- became due from the defendant society. The dues remained unpaid despite notice dated 10.6.1988 by registered post. Thus, the plaintiff sued the defendant to recover sum of Rs.15,828/- along with future interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum till full realisation thereof.

4. The defendant had resisted the suit on the ground that the suit was not competent for want of pre-suit statutory notice as required under section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (in short, "the Act of 1960") and, therefore, trial Court could not have entertained it.

5. The Appeal was admitted on 28.11.2000. The substantial question of law is as to whether Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the Civil Suit instituted against the Co-operative Society without pre-suit statutory notice, as required under section 164 of the Act of 1960.

6. Heard submissions at the Bar and perused the records.

7. Learned counsel for appellant placed reliance upon Section 164 of the Act of 1960 which reads thus:

"No suit shall be instituted against a society, or any of its officers, in respect of any act touching the business of the society, until 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."

It is clear from the provision of Section 164 of the said Act that it is prohibitory in terms that no suit can be instituted against a society or any of its officers in respect of any act touching the business of the society until pre-suit statutory notice in writing has been delivered to the Registrar of left at his office stating;

(i) the cause of action for the proposed suit;

(ii) name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff;

(iii) the relief which the plaintiff claims.

Furthermore, the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left. Such notice though mandatory is capable of being express or implied waiver. The requirements stated above are mandatory and for the benefit of Cooperative society or its Officers to be sued in respect of any act touching the business of society.

8. The mandatory requirements of Section 164 of the said Act serves policy of law and a public purpose to protect Cooperative Societies from expensive; avoidable and lengthy litigation. The object of pre-suit statutory notice is to alert the noticee-society about the proposed suit so that it may through its respon

Click Here to Read the rest of this document