JUDGMENT : Das, J. - This appeal has been filed by the Plaintiff against appellate decision of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack, reversing the judgment of the Munsif, Jajpur, in a suit for declaration that Award No. 17 dated 15-12-51 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, against the Plaintiff and Defendants 2 to 7 in respect of the suit land is void and not binding on the Plaintiff. 2. The case of the Plaintiff in brief is that Baidhar Samal (father of Defendants 2 to 4 and husband of Defendant 5) and Radhashyam Samal (father of Defendants 6 and 7) were brothers and had an equal extent of interest in the suit-land. Baidhar alone was a member of the co-operative Society (Defendant-1) with whom he mortgaged the suit properties in 1929 and took some loan and the Plaintiff was not aware of such mortgage or loan. The said Baidhar and Radhashyam, however, each executed a deed of mortgage by conditional sale, Exts. 1 and 2, respectively on 28-11-44 in respect of their interest in the suit property in favour of the Plaintiff and took some money, and put the Plaintiff in possession of such property, and since that date the Plaintiff remained in possession of the same. In the meanwhile, the Plaintiff came to know that the Defendant No. 1 had obtained a mortgage award (Ext. A) on 15-12-51 from the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies against Baidhar (since dead) Mahanti (D. 6) and Lochan (D. 7) the two sons of Radhashyam (Since dead), as also the Plaintiff and some others and purchased the suit property in the sale in execution (Case No. 46/52) of the said award. The Plaintiff has thus filed the present suit challenging the validity of the award and the sale made thereunder. He contends that no notice was served upon him and the said award proceedings were taken up at his back. His further case is that Radhashyam not being a member of the Society, the Registrar had no jurisdiction to pass any award against him or his sons, Defendants 6 and 7, in the suit. 3. Defendant 1, the Mahakalapara Co-operative Society is the main contesting Defendant in the suit. Its case is that Baidhar was a member of the Co-operative Society. 3. Defendant 1, the Mahakalapara Co-operative Society is the main contesting Defendant in the suit. Its case is that Baidhar was a member of the Co-operative Society. He mortgaged the suit-land to the Society as the Karta of his joint family and for the benefit of the family, and as such the interest of Radhashyam is also liable for the loan. The Plaintiff being a subsequent mortgagee claiming through the deceased Baidhar and Radhashyam, the aforesaid award was binding on the Plaintiff and the award was also passed after due notice on the parties including the Plaintiff. The Defendant also challenged the maintainability of the suit. 4. The trial court held, that the Registrar of the Co-operative Society has no jurisdiction u/s 48 of the Co-operative Societies Bihar & Orissa Act, 1935 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' to decide any such dispute as to whether Baidhar was the Karta of the joint family and whether the loan was incurred for benefit of the family, and such the award cannot affect the interest of Radhashyam and is therefore invalid and inoperative. He further held that the Plaintiff does not come under any of the categories of persons mentioned in Section 48 of the Act so as to give jurisdiction to the Registrar to pass an award against him. He thus declared the award to be void and inoperative and confirmed the possession of the Plaintiff and declared his suit. 5. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge reversed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the suit, mainly on the ground that the suit is not maintainable against the Society under liquidation (Defendant-1) without the necessary leave of the Registrar as provided u/s 57(2) of the Act. He also held that u/s 48 of the Act the Registrar has jurisdiction to give the award so as to bind the Plaintiff. He thus dismissed the suit and allowed the appeal. It is against this decision of the Subordinate Judge, the present appeal has been filed by the Plaintiff. 6. Mr. He also held that u/s 48 of the Act the Registrar has jurisdiction to give the award so as to bind the Plaintiff. He thus dismissed the suit and allowed the appeal. It is against this decision of the Subordinate Judge, the present appeal has been filed by the Plaintiff. 6. Mr. A.K. Das, learned Counsel for the Appellant, raised the following contentions; (1) That the original debtor Baidhar Samal was a member of the Society in his personal capacity and not as representing the joint family, and as such the Registrar has jurisdiction u/s 48 of the Act to pass an award affecting the interest of Radhashyam or his sons (Defendants 6 and 7) such an award is without jurisdiction and is unenforceable at least in so far as the interest of Radhashyam is concerned; and (2) That the award being without jurisdiction as contemplated u/s 57(3) there is no bar for the Civil Court to entertain the suit even without a formal leave from the Registrar as required u/s 57(2) of the Act. 7. With regard to the first contention, it is the Defendants case that Baidhar mortgaged the suit-property to the Society sometime in 1929 on behalf of the family and as the Karta thereof, and the family has been benefited by the said loan. But excepting the mere assertions In the written statement, there is no evidence in support of such a contention. In fact the defence has not examined a single witness and the only document filed (his behalf is Ext-A, the award. No doubt, a copy of the mortgage-deed has been filed, but it has not been duly proved by the Defendant. Even in the said mortgage-deed also there is nothing to show that Baidhar mortgaged the property as representing the joint family or as its Karta, so as to bind the other members. In the award also there is nothing to show that the loan was incurred by Baidhar as representing the joint family, and Defendants 6 and 7 have been shown therein as coparceners of the family whereas Baidhar has been mentioned as the principal borrower. No doubt, the Plaintiff has nowhere in the evidence denied the assertion of the Defendant-1 in his written statement that Baidhar incurred the loan as the Karta of the joint family. But that is not enough. No doubt, the Plaintiff has nowhere in the evidence denied the assertion of the Defendant-1 in his written statement that Baidhar incurred the loan as the Karta of the joint family. But that is not enough. Defendant-1, to sustain the award against Radhashyam or Defendants 6 and 7, must prove that Baidhar had mortgaged the suit property to the Defendant-1 on behalf of the joint family. As stated earlier, neither the Award nor the copy of the mortgage-deed does mention such a fact. Also there is no oral evidence to support such a stand. In the award the Plaintiff has been mentioned as one of the parties (Defendant-5). It is however, the case of the Plaintiff that he did not receive any notice in the award-proceeding. Defendant-1 does not controvert this position by evidence. 8. A case similar to the one new before me, came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court, reported in Bhagabat Jena and Ors. v. Rarnnarayan Mohanty representing the Routmandarini Co-operative Society ILR 1949 Cutt 505. There one Kalicharan as a member of the Society borrowed some money. The Society obtained an Award against some members of his family who in a suit challenged the correctness of the Award contending that u/s 48 of the Act, the Registrar had no jurisdiction to pass an A ward against them. Relying upon certain recitals in the A ward that Kalicharan incurred the loan as the Karta of the family, it was contended there on behalf of the Society that the other members of the family were bound by such award, and it was held in that case that an award passed by the. Registrar of the Co-operative Society on a reference u/s 48 of the Act making the other members of the joint family liable for the loan incurred by one of the members of the joint family who as a member of the Society, and not representing the joint family had incurred the loan, on the ground that the other members of the family had been benefited by the land is without jurisdiction and not binding on the other members of the joint family. They held that any question as to the liability of somebody other than the recorded member is foreign to the scope of Section 48. They held that any question as to the liability of somebody other than the recorded member is foreign to the scope of Section 48. The same view was also expressed in another decision of this Court reported in Mendhashal Co-operative Society v. Radhashyam Patnaik and Ors. 24 C.L.T. 395 wherein it was held that if it is found that the original debtor or the member of the Society was not representing the joint family while incurring the loan, the award must be taken to be a nullity against the members of the joint family. The learned Judge relied on the aforesaid Division Bench decision of this Court reported in ILR 1949 Cutt 505. Thus, the position is well settled that unless it is proved that the original debtor was representing the joint family while incurring the loan as a member of the Society, the award cannot be enforced against the other members of the joint family. 9. Mr. N.K. Das, contended that in any case the sons of Baidhar, the recorded members of the Society are liable for the debt and for that he relied upon a decision reported in Sheosaran Singh and Others Vs. Gaya Amla Co-operative Society and Others. There it was held that where the debt in respect of which the award has been granted is the debt of the deceased father and the award is passed against the son as the legal representative of the deceased father, the ancestral properties in the hands of the son can be attached and sold in execution of the award. That case is thus clearly distinguishable inasmuch as there the award itself was against the son (Appellant) as representing the estate of his father. Here the award is against Baidhar and not against his sons. In view of this position, the award (Ext.17) must be held to have been made without jurisdiction. 10. It was contended that so far as the Plaintiff is concerned, he being a subsequent mortgagee, cannot challenge the mortgage-award and the properties are liable to be sold for the 1st mortgage of the Society. It, however, appears from the Award (para 13) that he is also made personally liable to pay to the Society in case the net proceeds of the sale are found to be insufficient. His grievance is therefore legitimate. It, however, appears from the Award (para 13) that he is also made personally liable to pay to the Society in case the net proceeds of the sale are found to be insufficient. His grievance is therefore legitimate. Even if he is a subsequent mortgagee under the general law he cannot be made personally liable for the debts of the mortgagor. The Award is manifestly void at least to that extent and is one with out jurisdiction. 11. I shall now deal with the other contentions, viz., the suit is not maintainable in the civil Court as the leave of the Registrar u/s 57(2) of the Act had not been obtained. It is well-settled by high authorities that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not to be readily inferred, but that such exclusion must be either explicitly expressed or clearly implied Secretary of State v. Mark and Co. 1940 P.C. 105, and Magti Sasmal v. Pandab Bisoi 1962 S.C.D. 83 : 28 C.L.T. 85 (S.C.). It is necessary at this stage to look to the provisions of Section 57 of the Act which runs thus: Section 57. (1) Save in so far as is expressly provided in this Act, no Civil or Revenue Court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of any matter concerned with the winding up or dissolution of a registered society under this Act, or at any disputed required by Section 48 to be referred to the Registrar. (2) While a society is in liquidation, no suit or other legal proceedings shall be proceeded with or instituted against the liquidator as such or against the society or any member thereof on any matter touching the affairs of the society, except by leave of the Registrar and subject to such terms as he may impose. (3) No order of the Local Government, District Judge, Registrar, a person appointed to assist the Registrar, liquidator, or an arbitrator or arbitrators purporting to be one, which under any provision of this Act is declared to be final, shall be liable to be challenged, set aside, modified, revised, or declared void in any Court, upon merits or upon any ground whatsoever except want of jurisdiction. No doubt under Sub-section (1) above, the Civil Court pas no jurisdiction in respect of matters concerned with the winding up or dissolution of a registered society. No doubt under Sub-section (1) above, the Civil Court pas no jurisdiction in respect of matters concerned with the winding up or dissolution of a registered society. We are, however, concerned with the second part of the sub-section relating to the disputes required to be referred to the Registrar u/s 48 of the Act. It has been already seen from the case reported in ILR 1949 Cutt 504 that a dispute of the present nature is not one which can be referred u/s 48 to the Registrar and as such the Award is without jurisdiction. Section 57(3) clearly vests jurisdiction in the Civil Court in such cases where an order is passed without jurisdiction. The only other question is whether leave u/s 57(2) is also required even though the impugned order is held to be without jurisdiction. 12. Mr. N.K. Das, learned Counsel for the Society, contended that Defendant-1 being a liquidated society, it is mandatory u/s 57(2) for the Plaintiff to obtain leave of the Registrar before filing of the suit. He relied upon a case reported in Domi Ram Chaudhuri Vs. Liquidator, Nawadah Bazar Co-operative Society where it was held that the suit was not maintainable without the leave of the Registrar u/s 57(2). That case however is easily distinguishable. There the Plaintiff was himself a member of the Society and as such there was no question of want of jurisdiction in passing an award against him. The question of want of jurisdiction of the Registrar or the competence of the Civil Court to entertain the suit was not considered in that case. The provisions of Section 57 have to be read together so as to find out the real meaning of that section. Once it is found that the Award is without jurisdiction, the matter comes u/s 57(3) and under the jurisdiction of the Civil court to entertain the suit. Thus Section 57(2) has no application to such cases. Thus the suit is maintainable. 13. In the result, the award is set aside as against the Plaintiff. It is, however, open to the Defendant society subject to the Law of Limitation to regularise the proceedings so as to obtain a fresh award against the concerned parties. 14. The appeal is thus allowed. The parties are to bear their own costs of this Court. Final Result : Allowed