Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhagyawati Bai vs The Nirmad District Clerks … on 6 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26543
1 WP-745-2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
ON THE 6 th OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 745 of 2009
BHAGYAWATI BAI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE NIRMAD DISTRICT CLERKS CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY
LTD. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Amalpushp Shroti - Advocate for respondent No.1.
ORDER
The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India being aggrieved by the Order dated 05.09.2008 passed
by respondent No.2.
2. The facts of the case are such that the petitioners are the legal heirs
of Late Shri Mishrilal, who deposited a sum of Rs. 8,000/- on 8.01.1962 in
the account of Respondent No-1 society bearing ledger Folio No.14. Shri
Mishrilal died on 20.06.1992 and according to the respondent No-1/society
the balance in his account was paid to the petitioner No-3 Shri Rajendra
Kumar Vishwakarma. The petitioners filed a dispute U/s 64 of the Madhya
Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 before the Respondent No-4 i.e.
Assistant Registrar State Co-operative Societies, East Nimar, District
Khandwa which was registered as Case No. 9/90. In this case, the respondent
No-4 passed an order dated 16.12.1991 (Annexure P/1), whereby application
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NIDHI DAVE
Signing time: 22-04-
2026 12:00:33
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26543
2 WP-745-2009
was allowed and respondent No-1 was directed to pay the deposited amount
of Rs.8,000/- along with interest as applicable from time to time w.e.f.
8.01.1962 till the date of payment with amount of Rs. 100/- as cost of the
case. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed an Appeal No 6/92 before the
Respondent No-3 wherein the order dated 31.03.1995 (Annexure P/2) was
passed, thereby the order dated 16.12.1991 passed by the respondent No.4
was rejected/dismissed and the case was remanded to the respondent No.4
with direction to grant opportunity of hearing to the parties, file reply,
documents and evidence. Thereafter, respondent No-4 passed an order
dated 22.01.1999 (Annexure P/3), whereby the claim of the petitioners was
rejected/dismissed. Thereafter, petitioners filed an Appeal No. 08/1999
before Respondent No-3 against the order of respondent No.4 dated
22.01.1999. In the aforesaid appeal, the respondent No.3 passed an order
dated 31.05.2002 (Annexure P/4) thereby allowing the appeal of the
petitioners setting aside the order dated 22.01.1999 passed by the respondent
No.4 and also the case was remanded to the respondent No.4 for further
hearing for deciding the case as per law. Thereafter, respondent No.4 i.e.
Assistant Registrar, State Co-operative Societies, East Nimar, Khandwa
passed an order dated 8.07.2004 (Annexure P/5) directing respondent No.1
to pay the deposited amount of Rs. 8,000/- and along with interest as
applicable from time to time w.e.f. 8.01.1962 till the date of payment and to
pay the amount of Rs. 500/- as cost of the case. Thereafter, against the
aforesaid order dated 8.07.2004, respondent No.1 again filed an Appeal No.
120/2004 before Respondent No.3, wherein order dated 11.04.2005
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NIDHI DAVE
Signing time: 22-04-
2026 12:00:33
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26543
3 WP-745-2009
(Annexure P/6) has been passed thereby rejecting/dismissing the appeal of
respondent No.1 and the order dated 8.07.2004 passed by the lower authority
was maintained. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed a Second Appeal
No.71/2005 before respondent No.2 i.e. the Chairman, M.P. State Co-
operative Tribunal, Bhopal, wherein the respondent No.2 has passed an order
dated 5.09.2008 (Annexure P/7) holding that since the dispute was time
barred and the claim forwarded by the respondents was not supported by
adequate proof, accordingly appeal was allowed, and the impugned order
dated 11.04.2005 passed by the Joint Register, Co-operative Societies, in
Dispute No. 120/2004 has been set aside.
3. It is submitted by Counsel for the petitioners that the aforesaid
required amount of Rs.8,000/ has not been withdrawn by the petitioner
No.3. The respondent No.1 has not agreed to pay the said amount with
interest. The tribunal totally overlooked this important point. It is further
submitted that tribunal has passed the impugned order on the ground that the
dispute was time barred, which is totally illegal and beyond the law because
the instant case was filed by the petitioners well within time before the
authority. To bolster his submissions, learned Counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance on the Judgment dated 20.10.2008 of Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of C.A.No.6161/2008 (Noharlal Verma Vs. District Co-operative
Central Bank Ltd., Jagdalpur), and Judgment dated 4.9.1985 passed in M.P.
No.615/1983 (Dhar Central Co-op. Bank Vs. Board of Revenue) by this
Court. He further submits that the impugned order passed by the tribunal is
arbitrary, unjustified and illegal, therefore deserves to be rejected.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NIDHI DAVE
Signing time: 22-04-
2026 12:00:33
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26543
4 WP-745-2009
3. In reply, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that in the
impugned order, the finding of the Tribunal regarding the case being time
barred is absolutely correct, and needs no correction. It is further submitted
that the learned tribunal further found that evidence in the form of audit
report was also not accepted by the Assistant Registrar as it was just a
mathematical communication and not any conclusive proof. The importance
of the proof and the burden of proving it do not seem to have received the
attention of the Assistant Registrar. Sections 34 and 35 of the Law of
Evidence (Act I of 1872) are quite relevant in this context, whereas Section
34 provides that entries in the book of account, including those maintained in
an electronic form regularly kept in course of business, are relevant
whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to inquire, but such
statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with
liability. In the present case it is not the case of the fixation of liability.
Therefore, the entry in the account book in the present case seems to be
conclusive. Similarly, as provided in Section 35 of this Act, the entry in any
public or other official book, register or record or an electronic record,
stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the
discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in performance of a
duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such book,
register or record or an electronic record is kept, is itself a relevant fact.
Hence, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the present petition
deserved to be dismissed in the light of the impugned order.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NIDHI DAVE
Signing time: 22-04-
2026 12:00:33
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26543
5 WP-745-2009
5. The learned Tribunal in its finding with regard to Question No.1
has held that it is an admitted fact that the amount was deposited in the
appellant society on 08-01-1962 and the depositor Shri Mishrilal died as
early as on 20-06-1962. The Co-operative Society has taken categorical
stand of refund of amount, which is also supported by documents. The plea
of the Legal Heirs of Shri Mishrilal that they came to know about their
balance in the year 1989 is hardly tenable as there are no exact dates or the
description of any incident revealing the actual occurrence of it. Therefore,
by creating a tailor made cause of action would not cover up the delay as the
amount was provided on 8.1.1962 for which cause of action has been shown
to have arisen in 1989. Therefore, in the considered opinion of the Court,
the tribunal has legally passed an order holding claim of petitioner as time
barred.
6. Thus, no illegality, irregularity much less perversity is found in the
impugned order. The petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
nd
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NIDHI DAVE
Signing time: 22-04-
2026 12:00:33