High Court · 2025

C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.2778 of 2023BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 25.02.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMARC.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.2778 of 2023andC.M.P.(MD) No.14519 of 2023R.J.Gangatharan ... Petitioner-vs-1.The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies / Suo-Moto Surcharge Officer Madurai Circle Madurai2.S.Madhalaiappan3.K.Pandi4.M.Jegadeeswaran5.K.Paramanantham6.G.Laxmi7.M.Vijayalaxmi_______________Page 1 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.2778 of 20238.S.Lohanayagi9.T.Palanikumar10.B.Balasubramaniam11.N.K.Alagarsamy12.E.Manivel13.B.Mariyappan14.S.Velusamy15.R.Devi16.P.K.Selvaraj17.S.Mohan18.The Administrative Officer A.3101, Madurai Milk Project Employees Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., Aavin Complex, Sathamangalam Madurai... RespondentsPRAYER: Civil revision petition is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records relating to the fair and decreetal order dated 20.09.2023, made in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in C.M.A.(CS) No.6 of 2022, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Madurai and to set aside the same._______________Page 2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.2778 of 2023For Petitioner:Mr.R.Gandhi, Senior Counselfor M/s.Gandhi AssociatesFor Respondents:Mr.A.BaskaranAdditional Government Pleader for R1 & R18Mr.M.Ganesan for R2No appearance for R3, R5, R9 & R10Mr.S.Karthick Ramkumar for R4Mr.T.Ravichandran for R6 to R8, R11, R12, R14 to R16Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi for R13Mr.S.Srikanthfor M/s.APN Law Associates for R17O R D E RThe petitioner herein, who is the appellant in C.M.A.(CS) No.6 of 2022, on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Madurai, filed an application vide I.A.No.1 of 2023, seeking to club all the appeals that were filed against the order dated 18.02.2021, passed in the surcharge proceedings bearing Tha.Va.No.14/2019-2020.2. The said surcharge proceedings, under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, were initiated against several persons, including the petitioner herein and the respondents 2 to 17 and by order dated 18.02.2021, they were all held jointly and severally liable for the amounts determined under the said surcharge proceedings._______________Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.2778 of 20233. Aggrieved by the said order dated 18.02.2021, the petitioner herein filed C.M.A.(CS) No.6 of 2022 and whereas, the respondents 2 to 17 have filed different appeals vide C.M.A.(CS) Nos.30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 45, 47, 48 and 54 of 2021, before the Court of the Principal District Judge, Madurai, and all these appeals are pending before the Court of the Principal District Judge, Madurai.4. Now, the application filed by the petitioner vide I.A.No.1 of 2023 seeking to club all the above said appeals i.e., C.M.A.(CS) No.6 of 2022 and C.M.A.(CS) Nos.30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 45, 47, 48 and 54 of 2021 for disposal jointly has been dismissed by the learned Principal District Judge, by order dated 20.09.2023, on the ground that this Court has fixed a time frame for disposal of C.M.A.(CS) No.6 of 2022 and in case, if the said appeal is clubbed along with the other appeals, the said appeal could not be disposed of within the time stipulated by this Court. Aggrieved by the said order dated 20.09.2023, the petitioner has filed the present civil revision petition._______________Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.2778 of 20235. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 18 and respective learned counsels appearing for the respondents 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 & 18. Though the respondents 3, 5, 9 & 10 have been served and their names have been printed in the cause list, none appeared on their behalf.6. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent opposed the relief sought for in this civil revision petition, on the ground that all the documents and evidence that are relied upon in the surcharge proceedings is one and the same and the second respondent is only seeking to set aside the entire surcharge proceedings but not seeking any other relief against any other parties to the surcharge proceedings and therefore, there is no necessity to club all the appeals for disposal jointly. He further submitted that there is no property involved in the matter for the parties to make a rival claim over the said property._______________Page 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.2778 of 20237. This Court has care fully considered the above submissions and does not find any substance and on the other hand, they are absurd, for the reason that the liability was fixed against the petitioner as well as the respondents 2 to 17 in the proceedings initiated under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, is admittedly joint and several liability and in case if the Appellate Court in the appeal filed by the second respondent comes to the conclusion that the second respondent is not liable for the liability fixed under the surcharge order, the said liability is to be shifted to some other parties and in case if the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that any other party is responsible, it need not set aside the entire order, but it is equally competent to shift the said responsibility. Obviously, the second respondent would have impleaded all other persons, who are held liable under the surcharge order, as parties to the appeal filed by him in C.M.A.(CS) No.30 of 2021.8. Admittedly, the basis for the entire surcharge proceedings for fixing joint and several liability against the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 17 is one and the same. It is the same evidence and documents that are now required to be appreciated by the learned Principal District Judge while _______________Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.2778 of 2023deciding any of the appeals. If the Appellate Court is to decide the appeals filed against the very same surcharge proceedings individually, there is every likelihood of rendering conflicting or contradictory findings based upon the same evidence and documents, against different parties. Such a course is impermissible under law.9. It is settled legal position that all the appeals that are filed against the common proceedings are required to be heard and disposed of together to avoid conflicting judgments and contradictory views. In case if one appeal is decided independently leaving the other appeals, the order that would be passed in that single appeal may also operate as res judicata in sofar as the other appeals are concerned.10. Further, the reason assigned by the Appellate Court that this Court has prescribed a time limit for disposal of C.M.A.(CS) No.6 of 2022 cannot be a ground for refusing to club all the other appeals. Even if there is any such direction, the Appellate Court ought to have taken steps for disposal of all the appeals as expeditiously as possible and in case if it is felt necessary, the Appellate Court ought to have sought for extension of time by addressing appropriate letter to this Court. But, instead of resorting to any such method, _______________Page 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.2778 of 2023the Appellate Court refused to club all the other appeals solely on the ground that this Court has prescribed a time limit for disposal of C.M.A.(CS) No.6 of 2022. The same cannot be sustained. It is also necessary to notice that this Court, while entertaining this civil revision petition, granted interim stay by order dated 01.11.2023 and thus, the proceedings in C.M.A.(CS) No.6 of 2022 remain stayed for the past about two years.11. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that all the appeals that are filed against the order dated 18.02.2021 passed in the surcharge proceedings bearing Tha.Va.No.14/2019-2020 are required to be heard together and disposed of by a common order.12. Accordingly, the order dated 20.09.2023, passed in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in C.M.A.(CS) No.6 of 2022, on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Madurai, is set aside and I.A.No.1 of 2023 in C.M.A.(CS) No.6 of 2022 filed by the petitioner is ordered as prayed for. The learned Principal District Judge, Madurai, is directed to club all the appeals that are filed against the surcharge order dated 18.02.2021 passed in the surcharge proceedings bearing Tha.Va.No.14/2019-2020, and dispose of the same by a common order, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as _______________Page 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.2778 of 2023possible at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.13. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 25.02.2025NCC :Yes / NoIndex :Yes / NoInternet:Yes / No krkTo:1.The Principal District Judge, Madurai.2.The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies / Suo-Moto Surcharge Officer, Madurai Circle, Madurai.3.The Administrative Officer, A.3101, Madurai Milk Project Employees Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., Aavin Complex, Sathamangalam, Madurai._______________Page 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.2778 of 2023MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.krkC.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.2778 of 2023andC.M.P.(MD) No.14519 of 202325.02.2025_______________Page 10 of 10