JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - The petitioner was a member and Khazanchi of a Co-operative Society known as Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Limited, Parsol. This society was registered under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner embezzled a huge amount of the society and on inquiry it was found that an amount of Rs. 35,000 was due against the petitioner which he did not pay. An agreement was thereafter entered into between the petitioner and the society, which has been attached as Annexure 1 to the petition, on 24th February, 1970. In pursuance of this agreement the petitioner hypothecated his immovable property and further agreed to pay the entire amount outstanding in five equal annual instalments together with interest calculated at 12 per cent per year. The petitioner defaulted in the payment of the instalments and as such an application was made under Section 91 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 for enforcement of the charge and consequently the sale of the hypothecated properties. A notice was issued on this application. No objection was filed and ultimately by an order dated 26th July, 1973 the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies passed an order that the amount may be realised by the sale of the properties which were the subject-matter of the charge. This order was sought to be executed by the Society by filing an application before the Civil Judge, Bulandshahr. When the Civil Judge proceeded to execute the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, objections were filed by the petitioner. The petitioner wanted stay of the proceedings, but they were not stayed, and, consequently, the present petition was filed in this Court challenging the proceedings before the Civil Judge and further sought relief for quashing the award and the execution thereof. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies had no jurisdiction Ito pass an award to the tune of Rs. 59,970 and as such the award is void in law, and the proceedings consequent to the award are also, therefore, liable to be quashed. 4. At the outset it may be stated that no such specific issue was taken by the petitioner in the petition. In any case, we have examined the matter on the basis of the record available. 5. 4. At the outset it may be stated that no such specific issue was taken by the petitioner in the petition. In any case, we have examined the matter on the basis of the record available. 5. An agreement was entered into between the Society and the petitioner wherein the petitioner had hypothecated the properties and had agreed to pay the amount due in instalments. 6. Section 91 of the Co-operative Societies Act provides that on an application made by the co-operative society, the Registrar or any other gazetted officer subordinate to him authorised by him in this behalf may, on being satisfied on the existence of the debt or outstanding demand make an order directing the payment of such debt or outstanding demand due to the society by any member or post or deceased member by sale of the property or any interest therein which is the subject of the charges. 7. In the instant case there was already an agreement and as such in accordance with the section 91 the Assistant Registrar was fully authorised to pass an order for the sale of the properties. The order passed under section 91 of the Act by the Assistant Registrar is not an award but only a direction issued for the sale of the property as outstanding amounts were due against the petitioner by virtue of the agreement arrived at between the Society and the petitioner. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is fallacious and as such there is no merit in it. 8. In any case, in our opinion, it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner embazzled a huge money from the Co-operative Society. He ultimately entered into an agreement by virtue of which he agreed to hypothecate the property and also agreed to pay the amount also in instalments together with interest. The petitioner did not pay as agreed upon by him and, consequently, proceedings, have been taken against him for recovery of the amount. In view of the above, it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 9. In the result, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.