K. Veeraswami, J.
1. This petition is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Nagapattinam by which he rejected the defendant's contention that the suit does not lie without leave of the Registrar, in view of Section 89 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. The respondent who is the plaintiff sued the petitioner Co-operative Farming Society, for recovery of a large sum of money as arrears of rent due from it for Faslis 1373 and 1374. The society is one registered under and governed by the provisions of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. The basis for the claim was, as stated in the plaint, that the plaintiff had leased out to the society an extent of 305 acres on a rental of 3029 kalams of paddy and 458 bundels of straw per year, and that the defendant having entered into possession failed to pay the arrears of rent. It was also mentioned that eviction proceedings were instituted against the society before the Authorised Officer. While those proceedings were in progress, the society abandoned 35.44 acres. Subsequently, the Authorised Officer made an order for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent.
2. Among the defences, one was that the suit did not lie without leave of the Registrar and for this objection, reliance was placed on Section 89 of the Madras Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. In repelling the contention, the Subordinate Judge considered that the affairs of the society, for purposes of Section 89, would amount only to domestic affairs of the society and would not cover a claim such as in the suit.
3. I have no hesitation in holding that this view cannot be supported. Section 89 provides for bar of legal proceedings, when a society enters upon liquidation; and the policy behind the section is the same as the one behind similar provisions in the Companies Act or in the insolvency legislation. A claim made or which is pending when a society is wound up cannot be proceeded with in a civil Court. Section 48 of the old Act of 1932 contained a similar provision. The affairs of the society in my view, will certainly embrace a claim or liability against the society.
4. Mr. T.R. Srinivasan raised a preliminary objection that the revision petition does not lie and he sought reliance on Pichu Aiyangar v. Ramanuja Jeer Swamigal : AIR1940Mad756 .. The Division Bench of this Court in that case never held that a revision does not lie; but all that was pointed out in that case was that, in an appeal arising out of the decree in the suit itself, it would be open to the Division Bench considering the appeal to go into the propriety of the order passed by a single Judge of this Court under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. There is, therefore, no substance in the preliminary objection. Mr. Srinivasan then said that, if the suit is dismissed under Section 89, his client should have a remedy. There can be no doubt, I think that, in that event, the plaintiff can certainly lay claim before the Registrar, who is bound to consider the same and meet out the claim in accordance with the exigencies of the winding up.
5. The order of the Court below is set aside and the petition allowed. The Court below is directed to give a reasonable time to the plaintiff to apply to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for leave to pursue the suit, and if leave is granted, to try the suit and dispose of the same in due course. There will be no order as to costs.