The contents of audit notes prepared under Section 17 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, cannot be presumed to be correct under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, and must be proved by primary evidence.

P.C.Pandit, J.

1. This is a plaintiffs second appeal against the decree of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Hoshiarpur, confirming on appeal the decision of the trial Court dismissing his suit.

2. Banta Singh, a resident of village Tanoli, District Hoshiarpur, brought a suit against Anjuman Imdad Bahmi and Thrift Society of his village for a declaration to the effect that the decree obtained by the defendant on the basis of an award against him was illegal and void. He also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendant not to realise the said decretal amount from him in execution of the aforesaid decree. His allegations were that though he was a resident of village Tanoli, but he was living in Rajasthan since 1930 and used to visit his village off and on. About six months before the institution of the suit in May, 1958, when he visited his village, he came to know that the defendant had obtained a decree against him on the basis of an award and was going to execute the said decree by attaching and selling his immovable property. He was neither a member of the defendant-Society nor had he borrowed any money from it. He did not even stand surety for any member of the Society for any debt. It was also averred by him that he received no notice from the Arbitrator to appear before him.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant-Society on a number of pleas which led to the framing of the following issues:-

-

1. Whether the plaint as signed by the plaintiff?

2. Whether the plaintiff is or was a member of the defendant society?

3. If issue No. 2 is proved, whether civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?

4. If issue No. 2 is proved, whether the plaintiff was a debtor and a surety for a debtor of the defendant Society?

5. If issue No. 4 is proved, whether the proceedings before the arbitrator were illegal, unauthorised, inoperative for the reasons given in para No, 4 of the plaint?

4. The trial Judge held that the plaintiff was a member as well as a debtor of the defendant-Society, He further found under issue No. 3 that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, because the plaintiff could file an appeal against the award to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. He did not consider it necessary to give any finding on issue No. 5, in view of his finding on issue No. 3. As a result of these findings he dismissed the suit.

5. When the matter went in appeal before the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, he confirmed the findings of the trial Court on issues Nos. 2 and 4 and held that the plaintiff was a member as well as a debtor of the defendant-Society. Under issue No. 5, his finding was that the plaintiff did not produce any evidence to show that he was not served with a notice regarding the appointment of the Arbitrator. He had also not established that the Arbitrator did not issue any notice to him. The bare statement of the plaintiff that he was not served with any notice was, according to the learned Judge, not sufficient to hold that no notice was served on him. The award was, consequently, legal and binding on the plaintiff. So far as issue No. 3 was concerned, the learned Judge observed that if issue No. 5 had been proved by the plaintiff, the Civil Court might have jurisdiction to decide this case. In view of his finding on issue No. 5, the Civil Court, according to the learned Judge, had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The appeal was, consequently, dismissed. Against this decision, the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.

6. It was conceded by the learned counsel for the respondent that if the appellant is held to be not a member of the defendant-Society, then the civil Court would have jurisdiction to try the present suit, because in that case the award given by the Arbitrator would obviously be without jurisdiction. The Arbitrator could decide disputes between the Society and its members and if the appellant was not a member, then the Arbitrator would have no jurisdictio