Copy of this order is number available on record .
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein preferred a second appeal before the Cooperative Tribunal which appeal was treated as revision filed under Section 77 of the Act but dismissed vide order dated 22.11.2008.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a revision before the Joint Registrar.
However, the petitioner number maintains that the said companypromise was obtained under duress.
It appears that by another order dated 25.03.2008 the Deputy Registrar directed the receiver to take symbolic possession, instead of physical possession, of the property in dispute.
It appears that the petitioners mother died on 12.06.1988.
However, the said interim injunction appears to have been vacated by an order dated 12.4.2006.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the petitioner approached the High Court by way of a writ petition from which the present appeal arises.
On 02.02.2008, the petitioner herein filed an application under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC before the Deputy Registrar for appointment of receiver in respect of the property in dispute.
On 04.02.2008, an ex parte order appointing receiver was passed which was modified on 18.2.2008 and it was further directed to the receiver to take physical possession of the property in dispute.
of the property in dispute.
Neither of the two orders is available on record .
Subsequently, the first respondent executed another sale deed with respect to the property in dispute in favour of the second respondent on 21.04.2004.
A document styled as Compromise Deed dated 06.07.2004 came to be executed by the petitioner herein, the substance of which is that the petitioner agreed to receive a sum of Rs.6,50,000/ only and put an end to all the disputes in respect of the disputed property.
It appears that the Registrar vide order dated 29.08.2006 set aside the order dated 12.04.2006.
It appears from the record that subsequently the petitioner herein raised a dispute before the Registrar under Section 64 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act questioning the legality of the execution of the abovementioned unilateral Extinguishment Deed and allotment of the property in dispute in favour of the second respondent.
Vide order dated 1.2.2006, the Deputy Registrar passed an order injuncting the defendants from raising any companystruction or transferring by way of sale etc.
By order dated 08.11.2008, the Joint Registrar allowed the revisions of the second respondent and remitted the case back to the Deputy Registrar to decide the matter afresh.
Unfortunately, the order dated 29.08.2006 is number available on record companypletely, only part of the order is annexed to the paper book.
Subsequently, the petitioner raised a dispute by approaching the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies.
By the impugned judgment, the writ petition was dismissed.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Registrar, Cooperative Society.
Simultaneously, the second respondent also filed two revisions challenging the orders of appointment of the receiver dated 04.02.2008 and 18.02.2008 whereby the receiver was directed to take physical possession of the property in dispute.
Chelameswar, J. This petition arises out of the final judgment and order dated 03.08.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.14548 of 2008 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur.
