1. This Rule is directed against certain decrees of the Munsif at Jorhat and certain orders made by him in execution of those decrees in two suits which arose out of the liquidation of the Nakari Bamangaon Bank, a Co-operative Society registered under Act II of 1912. In the course of this liquidation the liquidator directed payment of Rs. 1,000 by each of two members of the Executive Committee of the society. These two gentlemen sought to recoup themselves by suing the other members of the society for the recovery of these sums. The suits were decreed in the plaintiff's favour by the learned Munsif on the 4th August 1923. Under these decrees the learned Munsif made ail the defendants liable for equal shares of the sum total decreed.
2. Certain of the defendants thereafter applied on various grounds to have the decrees as against them set aside, with the result that the suits were restored and re-heard as against these persons. On the 15th of July 1924 the learned Munsif by his judgment held that the effect of Section 42, Sub-section (b) of the Co-operative Societies Act was to deprive the civil Courts of jurisdiction in the matter. In the result he dismissed the suits as against these particular defendants. He observed that the judgment and decree so far as they related to the other defendants in the suit
although based upon erroneous findings on questions of law must stand good against all the defendants except those in whose cases revival has been granted.
3. Against this judgment the plaintiffs appealed to the District Judge who by his judgment of the 15th December 1925 dismissed the appeal. In the following year the decree-holders applied for execution of their decrees and. the judgment-debtor raised an objection, before the executing Court that the decree were null and void and could not be put into execution. This objection was disallowed, by the Munsif by his order of the 30th September 1926.
4. In the present Rule the judgment-debtors attack the decrees of the 4th August 1923 on the ground that they were made without jurisdiction and. seek to protect themselves against their execution.
5. For the Opposite Parties it is contended that the decrees themselves were appealable and that no appeal was preferred against them and that the present petitions are stale. It is further pointed out that an appeal lay against the order of the Munsif of the 30th September 1926 and that no appeal was preferred. The circumstances, are, however, in our opinion, somewhat exceptional and we do not consider that on proper cause being shown the petitioners should be deprived of the remedy which they have here sought. It has been contended that the learned Munsif in his judgment of the 15th July 1924 and the learned District Judge in his judgment of the 15th December 1925 were wrong in holding that the matter was one which came within the scope of Sub-section (b) of Section 42 of the Act. That sub-section, however, is framed in the widest terms, It runs thus:
Save in so far as hereinbefore expressly provided no civil Court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of any matter connected with the dissolution of a registered society under this Act.
6. Now this attempt on the part of these two members of the Executive Committee to pass on their liability to the other members of the society was, we think, a matter connected with the dissolution of the society and that consequently it was not a matter in respect of which the civil Court had any jurisdiction.
7. The result then is that the decrees of the 4th August 1923 were null and void and that no execution of them can proceed. In this view we make this Rule absolute, set aside the decrees in question and stay all further proceedings in execution.
8. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.