BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 25/02/2025 CORAM The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN SA(MD)No.973 of 2005 Manikadan : Appellant/Plaintiff Vs.

1.Paraicode Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited, Rep. by its Secretary, Paraicode, Mulagumoodu Post, Kanyakumari District.

2.The Secretary, Paraicode Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Ltd., Paraicode, Kanyakumari District. : Respondent/

Defendant PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree passed in AS No.41 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Nagercoil (Camp at Padmanabhapuram), dated 12/03/2005 confirming the the judgment and decree in OS No.245 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Padamanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District, 15/03/2003.

For Appellant : Mr.C.K.M.Appaji For Respondent : Mr.D.S.Nedunchezian Government Advocate

JUDGMENT

This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed in AS No.41 of 2003 by the Sub Court, Nagercoil (Camp at Padmanabhapuram), dated 12/03/2005 confirming the the judgment and decree in OS No.245 of 2001 passed by the Principal District Munsif Court, Padamanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District, dated 15/03/2003.

2.The plaint averments:-

The Plaintiff was appointed as Appraiser in the first defendant's Society on 30/06/2000. He joined duty on 01/07/2000. He is entitled for 60% of the charges on the valuation. He received the fees on 03/07/2001. On 12/07/2001, he was orally informed by the the second defendant that he need not attend the duty thereafter. Without following the procedure and rules, the above said oral direction was issued. So, the suit is laid for permanent injunction and costs.

3.The statement:- The suit itself is barred under section 156 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. There was no intention on the part of the first defendant to terminate the service of the plaintiff. Even if any necessity arises, the first defendant can use that power. More over, the plaintiff is only an Agent getting commission, working on the commission basis. He is not a permanent employee. Before him, some other person was the Agent. Since he was not attending the duty properly, the plaintiff was appointed in that place. One Kumaresan also filed a suit for permanent injunction and obtained a decree. As a counter suit, this suit is filed by the plaintiff.

4.On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court formulated the following issues:-

(1).Whether the order, dated

30.6.2000 appointing the plaintiff as a appraiser in the defendant's bank valid?

(2).Whether the plaintiff is working in the defendant bank continuously for more than the statutory period?

(3).Whether the defendants have the right to dismiss the plaintiff? (4).Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for in the plaint? and (5).To what other reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to?

5.The following Additional issue was framed before the pronouncement of the judgment by the trial court:-

“Whether the suit is barred under section 156 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act?”

6.To substantiate the contention on the part of the plaintiff, one witness was examined and marked 2 documents on his side. On the side of the defendants, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

7.At the end of the trial process, the trial court dismissed the suit without any costs. Against which, A.S No.41of 2003 was preferred by the plaintiff before the Sub Court, Nagercoil. The appellate Court also dismissed the appeal.

8.Against which, this second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff.

9.At the time of admission, the following substantial question of law was framed by this court:-

(1)Whether the courts below are justified in law in rejecting the claim of the appellant since the respondents have illegally prevented the appellant from discharging his duties and also without cancelling his appointment order E.A1?

(2)Whether the courts below are justified in law in holding that the