Revision before High Court is not maintainable against order passed by Consumer Forum.

(Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Order dated 11.03.2002 made in E.A.No.3 of 2001 in E.P.No.20 of 1999 in O.P.No.122 of 1998 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Form, Vellore.)

Revision petitioner is the Ex-President of Mettupadti Multi-Purpose Worker's Industrial Cooperative Society, against whom there was an award dated 31.03.1999 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore; that award was based for the failure on the part of the revision petitioner in the capacity of the President of the Society to comply with the contract between the Society and the respondent-State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D., Tank Modernisation Circle, Vellore. That contract was entered into between them for manufacturing of paddle shutters by the Cooperative Society and for delivery to the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D., Vellore and by such an agreement, two cheques for a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- were received by the Society from the respondent. Even after receiving the amount for the performance of manufacturing of paddle shutters by the Cooperative Society, the Society has failed; which eventually culminated into an award passed against the President of the Society and that was an ex parte award dated 31.03.1999 upon an application by the respondent before the Redressal Forum made on 30.11.1998.

2. The revision petitioner preferred an application I.A.No.15 of 2000 under Order IX Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the ex parte decree awarded, which was dismissed and there was no appeal preferred against the same. Thus, the ex parte decree became final. Respondent thereupon preferred to file an execution petition in E.P.20 of 1999 and Non-bailable warrant was ordered against the individual Jaivel, who was the President of the Society at the time of contract dated 21.10.1993, for the breach of which award happened to be passed against the President of the Society. While Jaivel, the revision petitioner filed a petition to recall warrant, a conditional order was passed, directing to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/-; against which C.R.P.No. 3463 of 2001 was filed before this Court, wherein the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was directed to reconsider the quantum of deposit; whereupon the Consumer Redressal Forum has modified the quantum as Rs.15,000/- and that was also defaulted to pay by the revision petitioner and resulting in issuance of another warrant; against which, this revision petition arose.

3. Learned counsel Mr.Manokaran quoted Section 39 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, which is as follows:-

"The registration of a society shall render it a body corporate by the name under which it is registered, with perpetual succession and a common seal and with power to hold property, to enter into contracts, to institute and defend suits and other legal proceedings and to do all things necessary for the purposes of which it is constituted."

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner drew my attention to Section 2(10) C.P.C., Rule 2 (h) of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988, Rule 2 (e) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1988 and Section 39 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1983.

5. Section 2 (10) C.P.C. defines the judgment debtor as any person against whom a decree has been passed or an order capable of execution has been made. Rule 2(h) of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988, defines the Judgment debtor as the society against which or the person against whom a decree has been obtained. Rule 2 (e) of The Tamil Nadu Consumer Protection Rules, 1988, defines the opposite party as a person who answers a complaint or claim. However, Section 39 of Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, provides co-operative society as a legal entity entitled to sue and be sued.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that it is only the society, against which a complaint was lodged;