Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 18.09.2025 vs Registrar Co-Operative Societies on 18 September, 2025
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2023:HHC:6993
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No.159 of 2023
Decided on: 18.09.2025
.
Amit Jaswal & another ... Petitioners
Versus
Registrar Co-operative Societies,
Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1Yes
____________________________________________________ _
For the petitioners : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior
Advocate, with Mr. Sparsh Bhushan,
Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional
r Advocate General, for respondents
No.1 and 2.
Mr. Adarsh Kumar Vashista, Advocate,
for respondents No.3 and 5.
Respondent No.4 is stated to be dead.
Mr. Sharad Kumar, JOAIT, Legal Cell,
RCS Office, present in person.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this petition, the petitioners have, inter alia,
prayed for the following relief:-
"It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this petition
may kindly be allowed and order dated 26.4.2022
passed by respondent No.1 may kindly be set aside
consequently allowing the application filed by the
petitioners under Order IX rule 7 CPC of the Code of Civil
Procedure, thereby restoring the appeal and decide the
same after hearing the same on merit.
That the respondents may very kindly be directed
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2023:HHC:6993
to conduct special audit of Himalayan Educational
Society, as ordered by respondent No.2 vide order dated
20.8.2016, annexure P-1 and which was placed before
.
this Hon'ble Court in CMPMO No.34 of 2016.
That the status of the petitioners may very kindly
be ordered to be restored in the same capacity, as was in
2015."
2. When this case was listed on 16.09.2025, the following
order was passed:-
"When this case was taken up for consideration,
the Court stands informed that respondent No.4 is dead
and steps have not been taken to bring on record the legal
representatives of said respondent.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that as Mr. Gulshan Sadana was impleaded as
a party in his capacity as Treasurer of the Himalayan
Educational Society, therefore, there is no necessity to
implead his legal representatives and interest of justice
would be served in case his name is deleted from the
array of respondents as the Himalayan Educational
Society is already represented by its Chairman.
In the light of the prayer made on behalf of learned
Senior Counsel, the name of deceased respondent No.4 is
ordered to be deleted from the array of respondents.
Heard for some time. Learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of
the Court to Annexure P-2. He submitted that it is evident
in terms of this order that the case was listed on
15.03.2019, on which date, the matter was not taken up
2023:HHC:6993
as the Presiding Officer was on official tour. He submitted
that thereafter on 18.3.2019, the Presiding Officer
ordered that the case be listed after 15.4.2019 and the
.
office listed the case for 27.5.2019. He submitted that for
the said date i.e. 27.05.2019 neither the petitioners were
served nor their counsel were served. Therefore, the
impugned orders which have been passed at their back
are per se perverse and further the order subsequently
passed by the Authority in terms whereof the application
filed by the petitioners for recalling the orders has been
dismissed, is also not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Having heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioners, this Court is of the considered view that
all these facts can be ascertained from the records of the
Authorities and accordingly, learned Additional Advocate
General is directed to produce the relevant record of
Registrar, Co-operative Society, to ascertain as to whether
there was any service upon the petitioners, in person or
through counsel for 27.05.2019 or not. List on
18.09.2025, as prayed for."
3. Today, learned Additional Advocate General has
produced the Dispatch Register maintained in the Office of Registrar,
Co-operative Societies for the period 14.03.2019 to 25.05.2019. The
Court stands apprised that in terms of Entry No.3411 of the said
Register, notice was issued to all and other parties appeared accept
the Counsel for the petitioners. However, on instructions, learned
Additional Advocate General further informed the Court that this
2023:HHC:6993
Dispatch Register only records the issuance of the notice, but receipt
thereof cannot be verified from the said Register. On further query,
.
learned Additional Advocate General further apprised the Court that
there is no material available in the Office of Registrar, Co-operative
Societies that the notice indeed was served upon the Counsel.
4. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
as well as learned Additional Advocate General and learned Counsel
appearing for respondents No.3 and 5. I have also carefully gone
through the impugned order.
5.
In fact, a perusal of the impugned order demonstrates
that it stood recorded therein, i.e. in Para-8 thereof, that the notice
that was issued to the petitioners through Counsel was not received
back, yet the Authority dismissed the application filed for setting
aside the ex parte order on the ground that the order under
challenge was a balanced one which did not prejudice either
contesting respondents.
6. This Court is of the considered view that the impugned
order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. This is for the reason that
as the order earlier passed by the Authority was an ex parte order
and an application was filed by a party seeking re-call thereof, on
the ground that the party was not served and for this reason it could
not appear, all that the Authority was supposed to decide the
application filed under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code
2023:HHC:6993
was whether the contention of the party that it was not served was
borne out from the record or not.
.
7. In light of the fact that the record did not demonstrate
that the petitioners indeed were served through Counsel, obviously
the order, in terms whereof, the petitioners were proceeded against
ex parte was not sustainable in the eyes of law. Whereas, the
Dispatch Register of the Office of Registrar, Co-operative Societies
demonstrates that notice was issued to the petitioners through
Counsel, but as has been submitted by the learned Additional
Advocate General on instructions there is nothing on record to
demonstrate that there indeed was a service of the notice upon the
learned Counsel. As observed hereinabove also, this finds mentioned
in Para-8 of the impugned order also.
8. In this backdrop, it would have been in the interest of
justice had Registrar, Co-operative Societies re-called the ex parte
order and heard the matter afresh. Not doing so and dismissing the
application simply on the ground that the impugned order was a
balanced order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. If the party was
proceeded against ex parte wrongly, then the order ought to have
been re-called and the act of the Authority of not doing this, is
not sustainable in the eyes of law.
9. Accordingly, in light of above observations, this petition
is allowed. Order dated 26.04.2022 (Annexure P-8) is set aside, in
2023:HHC:6993
terms whereof, the application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of the
Civil Procedure Code was dismissed. Further, order dated
.
27.05.2019, which is an ex parte order against the petitioners is also
set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Registrar, Co-
operative Societies, who is directed to decide the case afresh in
accordance with law. Parties through Counsel are directed to appear
before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies concerned on
15.10.2025.
10. The petition stands disposed of. Interim order, if any,
stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also
stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
September 18, 2025
(Rishi)
