2025:CGHC:25325 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 546 of 2019 1 - Damru Das (Died Through Lrs) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 18-06-2025 1.1 - (A) Pramod Kumar Gabel S/o Late Damru Das Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Nawapara Khurd, Post Nandour Khurd, Tehsil Sakti, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh 2 - Bira Bai (Died Through Lrs) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 18- 06-2025 2.1 - (A) Roshan Kumar Gabel S/o Late Damru Das Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Nawapara Khurd, Post Nandour Khurd, Tehsil Sakti, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Sale Officer Jila Sahakari, Krishi Yavam Gramin Vikas Bank Maryadit Janjgir District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Jila Sahakari Krishi Yavam Gramin Vikas Bank Maryadit Janjgir Distirct Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Dy. Registrar Firms And Society Janjgir ,district Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - Md. Sakil Kureshi S/o Md. Hanif Kureshi R/o Sakti Tahsil Sakti District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 6 - Branch Manger Jila Sahakari Kendriya Ban Maryadit Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey -2- Order on Board 18.06.2025 Heard. 1. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh in Revision Case No.78(1)/01/J/13 dated 19.02.2013 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners was dismissed. 2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioners borrowed a loan to the tune of Rs.2,27,000/- from respondent No.2 to purchase the tractor and trolley. The petitioners could not repay the loan, therefore, their mortgaged property was put for auction. The property was auctioned and respondent No.4 purchased it in the auction. The petitioners challenged the said proceeding by raising a dispute under Section 64 of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies vide order dated 03.10.2012 dismissed the dispute. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies Bilaspur along with an application for the grant of stay. Initially, an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioners but later on, it was vacated on 22.12.2012. The petitioners preferred a revision before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies against the said order and the revision was dismissed vide order dated 19.02.2013. Against the said order, this petition has been preferred. 3. Ms. Kochar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would argue that the Bank without complying with the mandatory provisions put the property of the petitioners for auction. She would further argue that initially, the stay order was granted by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies in favour of the petitioners but later on, it was vacated without sufficient cause. She would contend that the Revisional Court i.e. the Registrar, Cooperative Societies erroneously dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioners. She would further contend that the interim order is operating in favour of the petitioners. She would pray to allow the present petition. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Surfaraj Khan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and Ms. Shukla, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Kochar. They would submit that the petitioners could not repay the loan, therefore, their property was put for auction. Mr. Khan would submit that the subject property was purchased by respondent No.4 in the auction. He would contend that though respondent No.4 is in possession of the subject property but he is unable to use it. He would further contend that the appeal preferred by the petitioners is still pending consideration before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies and this petition has been preferred against the rejection of an interim application. He would also submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. In the instant petition, an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioners on 20.02.2019 whereby, the respondents were directed not to create third party interest over the land belonging to the -4- petitioners. 7. Admittedly, the appeal preferred by the petitioners is still pending consideration before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bilaspur. 8. Initially, an application for the grant of interim relief was allowed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bilaspur but, later on, it was vacated. A revision preferred against the said order has been dismissed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. 9. Taking into consideration the fact that the appeal preferred by the petitioners is still pending before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bilaspur, without making any observation on the merits of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bilaspur to decide the pending appeal preferred by the petitioners preferably within a period of 60 days from today. 10. The interim order dated 20.02.2019 shall remain operative for a period of 60 days only. 11. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha