Suit filed against of award passed by arbitrator is barred.

K.P. SIVASUBRAMANIAM, J.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Pattukottai in A. S. No. 25/84 reversing that of the learned District Munsif, Mannargudi in O. S. No. 268/82.

( 2 ) THE defendant in the suit, Paravakottai Village Cooperative Agricultural Loan society by its Secretary is the appellant in the present Second appeal.

( 3 ) THE suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from attaching any of the properties belonging to the plaintiff from enforcing the Award Nos. ARC 38/1976-77 and arc No. 1702/1979-80 on the file of the Arbitrator of Cooperative Societies. It is not necessary to deal with the merits of the mutual contentions on the correctness of the claim made by the defendant/appellant resulting in the filing of the present suit, in view of the decision to be taken in the context of the objection by the defendant pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the above suit. The facts required for the said decision would be that the plaintiff is the son of one Jayarama Thevar and his wife Manimekalai ammal who were permanent residents of Paravakkottai Village. The plaintiffs parents had borrowed loans from the defendant and accordingly Jayarama thevar is said to owe Rs. 5091/-to the defendant under loan No. S. T. 2587 and Manimekalai is said to owe Rs. 6750/-under loan No. S. T. 0486. Decrees have also been passed against both of them. Hence the defendant sought to attach the properties pertaining to the award passed by the Arbitrator under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, Tamil Nadu Act 53/61. According to the plaintiff, the proposed attachment was illegal and hence the suit.

( 4 ) THE defendant while denying the claims of the plaintiff on the merits, also contended that the suit itself was not maintainable as the Civil Court has no Jurisdiction as mandated under Section 100 of the said Act. Balance of convenience was also not in favour of granting any injunction and the plaintiff was not entitled to any injunction in respect of awards passed by the competent authority under the provisions of the Act. The plaintiff even otherwise was entitled to other reliefs even if the properties were exempted under Section 60 of C. P. C, or attached under the provisions of Act. 53/1961 and hence the suit was misconceived. On the question of maintainability of the suit, the trial Court agreed with the objection taken by the defendant arid held that the Civil suit was not maintainable. However, on appeal, the learned appellate Judge held that the nature of the suit as filed by the plaintiff was not barred by the provisions of the Act and hence the suit was maintainable. The lower appellate Court further held that the defendant cannot seek to attach the properly belonging to the plaintiff with reference to the loans payable by his parents. Hence the present Second Appeal.

( 5 ) THE only issue which arises for consideration is as regards whether the suit is maintainable in view of the bar under Section 100 of Act 53/1961.

( 6 ) UNDER Section 100 of the said Act, it is held that no order or award passed, decision or action taken or any direction issued under the Act by an arbitrator, the Liquidator, the Registrar or an officer authorised or empowered by him or the Tribunal or any officer, subordinate to him shall be liable to be called in question in any Court.

( 7 ) MR. K. Yamunan, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant besides relying on the said provisions would also refer to various other provisions in the Act and the Rules which provide to the aggrieved party adequate remedy to pursue his objections as regards the question as to whether the property belonging to the plaintiff could be attached or not and that therefore, the plaintiffs recourse to the Civil Court was statutorily barred. As regards the liability of the legal heirs of the deceased, the learned Counsel refers to the expl