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 6.4.2009.
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 28.11.2007 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 Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. The applicant herein entered into an agreement dated 28.6.1997 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 28.11.2007 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 28.6.1997, 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 6.4.2009, 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 Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act 1983 will not get attracted in this case. The court also has not considered the jurisdiction of the Additional Registrar, for as per the agreement between the applicant/petitioner and the marketing federation, the disputes between the parties are to be decided by the courts situated in Chennai.
7 I have heard Mr.G.Rajagopal the learned Senior counsel for the Review applicant and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. I have also gone through the documents made available on record including the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent.
8 The learned Senior counsel would submit that Sec.90 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act will not get attracted, as per clause 28 of the Agreement entered into between the applicant and the marketing federation only courts in Chennai have got jurisdiction and not other courts. But, this jurisdictional aspect has not been dealt with by this Court while passing final orders in Civil revision petitions. Further, this court has held that the applicant is an agent. Whereas that issue should have been left open to be decided by the court below. Hence, he prays for reviewing the order passed by this court in C.R.P. No.720 of 2008 on 6.4.2009.
9 Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent while reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit would submit that the issue whether the applicant is an agent or not, has already been discussed by the Deputy Registrar in his order dated 256/97-98 dated 30.7.1999 and the same was upheld by this court. In such circumstances, the same cannot be reviewed as no grounds under Sec.47 Rule 1 C.P.C. were made out by the Review applicant. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the application.
10 I have considered the rival submissions carefully.
Taking the scope of the Review application under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C., a review could be filed only if there is patent error on the face of the record or on the discovery of a new or important matter or evidence, which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced at the time when the order was passed or for any other sufficient reason. In the case on hand, on the facts of law, this court passed an order disposing off all the C.R.Ps. Further, the order under challenge before this court was only a remand to the Deputy Registrar for fresh disposal by the Tribunal. Whereas the Review applicant is attempting to re-argue the matter on merits.
11 The crux of the argument of the learned Senior counsel is that this court ought not to have decided the issue whether the applicant is an agent or not and could have left the issue open while dismissing the revision petition. The further ground raised is that this court has not considered the jurisdiction as per the agreement according to which only the courts in Chennai alone have the jurisdiction to decide the issues.
12 I am unable to the argument of the learned Senior counsel on what is now being sought for is re-arguing the case on merits under the guise of review.
13 Aggrieved by the order of Deputy Registrar, dt.30.7.1999, the applicant filed C.M.A.No.26 of 2000 and the Tribunal by order dt.28.11.2007 allowed the appeal on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and remitted the matter back to the Deputy Registrar.
14 It is the applicant who chose to challenge the order of Remand by filing Review under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India and one of the grounds raised is that Sec.90 of Co-operative Societies Act will not get attracted in the present case and the petitioner is not an agent. The further ground raised in C.R.P. is that even assuming that he is an agent, Sec.90 will not apply and only courts in Chennai alone have jurisdiction to decide the issues.
15 Considering the grounds raised in the C.R.P. and on the basis of the arguments advanced, the applicability of Sec.90 and whether the applicant is an agent have been gone into and on merits, I held that the applicant is an agent and Sec.90 would definitely get attracted in this case. Further, I have concurred with the findings of Deputy Registrar with regard to these two questions.
16 In such circumstances, if the applicant is aggrieved by these findings, the proper remedy is to file an appeal and not a Review application. Having come before this court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India raising the above questions and having found that the decision of this court is not favourable to him with regard to the above issues, it is not open to the applicant to get over the findings of the court which are adverse to him by filing a review petition.