O R D E R

As, these appeals arise out of a common judgment passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Mandi, in Civil Appeal Nos. 11 of 2016, titled as Akashdeep Singh vs. Administrator, The Mandi Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Mandi, H.P., & Ors., the same are being disposed of by common judgment.

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of these appeals are as under:-

Appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibit injunction against the defendants inter alia on the ground that defendant No. 2, who was elected as a Director of the defendant/respondent No. 1-bank, allured the plaintiff for raising loan by alleging that he had already sanctioned a Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 20,00,000/- in favour of his son i.e. (defendant No.3). Being allured, plaintiff intended to raise a loan of Rs. 50,000/- but defendant No.2, allured the plaintiff for sanctioning loan of Rs. 2,00,000/-and out of this amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, defendant No.2 transferred Rs. 1,50,000/- in the C.C. Limit account of his son (defendant No.3). Thus, loan amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was transferred in the account of defendant No.3, by defendant No.2. Defendant No.3, stood surety for the aforesaid loan. Defendants No. 2 & 3 paid few regular installments to the bank against the aforesaid loan amount but thereafter they stopped paying the installments. The loan account was declared as Non Performing Assets. The case was sent for Arbitration, wherein learned Arbitrator passed an award in favour of defendant No. 2. Plaintiff agitated the matter by stating that as defendant No.2 had taken away an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the account of the plaintiff, hence the plaintiff was only liable to pay Rs.50,000/-. As per the plaintiff, even the defendant-bank had not opened any account of his at the time of raising loan and defendant No. 2 had obtained his signatures from a shop as the plaintiff had never visited the defendant-bank. According to the plaintiff, he had requested defendant No.2, on numerous occasion to realize the entire loan amount but defendant No. 2, did not do so which led to issuance of the orders of the auction of the suit land belonging to the plaintiff. He appealed to the revenue authorities against these orders but finally lost leading to the passing of the orders of the auction of his land. It is in this background, that the suit was filed with the prayer that the defendants No. 2 & 3 be directed to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- towards the loan amount.

2. The suit was resisted by the defendants inter alia on the ground that the same was bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of parties and that there no cause of action had accrued in favour of the plaintiff, to file the suit. The same was also resisted on maintainability as well as being hit by the principle of resjudicata by defendant No.1. Defendants No.2 & 3 also denied the allegations leveled in the plaint and as per them, they had nothing to do with the loan which stood taken by the plaintiff from defendant No.1-bank.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties learned Trial Court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration to the effect that defendant No.2 and 3 be declared as loanee of Rs. 1,50,000/- as prayed for? OPP.

2. If the issue No.1 is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of mandatory injunction directing defendant No.2 to repay the entire loan amount to the bank, as prayed for? OPP.

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP.

4. Whether the present suit is not maintainable for want of notice under Section 76 of the HP Co-operative Societies Act, as alleged? OPD-1.

5. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit in view of Section 75 and 92 of the HP Co-operative Societies Act, as alleged? OPD-1 & 4.

6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD-1.

7. Whether the plaintiff is stopped by his own act an