(Prayer: Review application is filed Under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. r/w Section 114 Civil Procedure Code to review the order passed by this Court in C.R.P.(PD) No.720 of 2008 dated 06.04.2009.)

This review application has been filed by the revision petitioner for reviewing the order passed by me in C.R.P.(PD) No.720 of 2008 dated 06.04.2009.

2. The revision petitioner in C.R.P. (PD) No.720 of 2008 is the review applicant herein.

.This review application has been filed to review the order passed by this Court in C.R.P. (Pd) No.720 of 2008, dated 4. 2009.

3. Three Civil Revision petitions, namely C.R.P. (PD) Nos.720 to 722 of 2008 were filed. Out of which two were filed by the applicant herein namely, C.R.P. (PD) No.720 and 722 of 2008 and C.RP. (PD) No.721 of 2008 was filed by K.Sivagami/wife of the revision petitioner in C.R.P.(PD) No.720 and 722 of 2008 challenging the orders dated 211. 2007 passed in Co-operative Tribunal in C.M.A. Nos.26, 97 and 98 of 2000 respectively on the file of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore Co-opearative Tribunal (Appellate Authority) Coimbatore.

.4. The C.R.P..No.720 of 2008 was filed by the applicant herein, who was respondent in Case No.256/97-98/SP-I on the file of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operatives, Coimbatore. The Case No.256/97-98 was filed by the Regional Manager, Tamilnadu Co-operative Marketing Federation, Coimbatore under Sec.90 of the Tamilnadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983. The applicant herein entered into an agreement dated 26. 1997 with the Tamilnadu Co-operative Marketing Federation for transporting manure and pesticides. The Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, the second respondent in C.R.P.No.720 of 2008 initiated proceedings under Sec.90 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act, alleging that there were short supplies of manure and the same has to be made good by the revision petitioner, so as to make good the loss caused to the federation. The applicant herein questioned the maintainability of the proceedings initiated under Sec.90 of the Co-operative Societies Act. By the order dated 30.7.1999, the Deputy Registrar allowed the claim and aggrieved by the same, the applicant herein filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.26 of 2000 before the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore who is the Appellate Authority. The Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal by order dated 211. 2007 on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and remanded the matter to the Deputy Registrar for fresh disposal. Questioning the remand, the C.R.P..No.720 of 2008 was filed by the applicant herein alleging that the question of jurisdiction raised by the applicant herein before the lower Appellate Court has not been considered and if only the same was considered, the proceedings initiated under Sec.90 would not have been maintained. While considering all the Civil Revision petitions, together namely C.R.P.No.720 and 722 of 2008 filed by the applicant herein and C.RP. No.721 of 2008 filed by the wife of the applicant herein, I held that the applicant herein is acting as an agent for the Federation as per the Lorry Transport Contract deed dated 26. 1997, the provisions of Sec.90 sub-clause 1(2) would get attracted and therefore, the dispute arising thereon between the applicant and the Federation could be referred to the Registrar for a decision under Sec.90 of the Act. Consequently, in C.P.R.No.721 of 2008, I set aside the attachment of the property of the wife/applicant herein who had filed the C.R.P. No.721 of 2008. Thus, C.R.P. No.720 of 2008 and 722 of 2008 filed by the applicant herein were dismissed.

5. To review the said orders, particularly the order made in C.RP.No.720/08 on 4. 2009, the above Review Application has been filed.

6. The case of the Review Applicant is that this Court while deciding the C.R.P. No.720/08 ought to have left the issue whether the applicant is an agent or not open. Further, the court ought to have see that Sec.90(1)(c) of the