The enforcement of an award remains valid despite challenges concerning procedural lapses, if the award is unchallenged.

ORDER

The above Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed in C.M.A.C.S.No.27 of 2019 by the Principal District Judge, Salem.

2. The facts are briefly set out herein below:

(i) The revision petitioner had obtained a loan of Rs.65,000/- by mortgaging her house property. The petitioner had defaulted in repayment of loan and as on 04.02.2006, she was liable to pay a total sum of Rs.1,75,958/- to the 2^nd respondent.

(ii) At the instance of the 2^nd respondent, surcharge proceedings under Section 90(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act were initiated against the petitioner. The 1^st respondent, by Award dated 02.02.2006, had directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- to the 2^nd respondent with future interest @ 20% per annum plus costs failing which the same was to be realized from the mortgaged property. Challenging the said Award, there was no further appeal by the petitioners herein and the same had attained finality. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent-Society had initiated execution proceedings in E.P.No.156 of 2006-2007 on the file of the District Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Housing) Salem Region, the 1^st respondent herein. By order dated 04.02.2006, the 1^st respondent had ordered the auction sale of the mortgaged property and has issued a sale notice. It is challenging the sale notice in the execution proceedings that the petitioner is before his Court on the sole allegation that the notice in the execution proceedings was not served on the petitioner and that the proceedings is barred by Limitation.

3. The learned Principal District Judge had framed the following points for consideration:

1. That the notice of the 1^st respondent is contrary to law and weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

2. That the impugned notice is violation of natural justice.

3. That the impugned notice is very mechanical one there is no particulars disclosed in the notice 4. The first respondent when issuing any notice on any application made to him for such recovery or to take some steps in aid of such recovery or take some steps in aid of such recovery, the first respondent has failed to consider that the proceding is barred by limitation and all other grounds.

4. During the course of argument before the learned Principal District Judge, Salem, the petitioner had submitted that the 1^st respondent had not followed any proceedure but has directly passed the order and sent notice to the petitioner. Further, the procedures contemplated under the Rule 148 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules have not been followed. Whenever a notice was sent to her, the 2^nd respondent has deposited the amounts to the petitioner herein. However, in the instant case, the 1^st respondent had not deposited any amount into the credit of the execution proceedings. That apart, the execution proceedings were barred by limitation. The learned Judge held against the petitioner by holding that the execution proceedings had been commenced in the year 2016 itself. From the date of the execution proceedings, amounts were not paid by the petitioner herein. The learned Judge also observed that no appeal had been filed challenging the Award and the execution proceedings being only a sequel to the award the appeal was not maintanable. Agrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. Admittedly, the Award dated 04.02.2006 has not been challenged to date by the petitioner and the same has attained finality. It is this unchallenged Award that is sought to be executed. The ground that has been raised in the civil revision petition is that there has been a non-application of mind on the