JUDGMENT : C.S. Karnan, J. 1. The history of the case are as follows:- The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Coimbatore, had issued a demand notice, dated 12.01.2004, to the third respondent, namely, M. Prabakaran, directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 13,30,000/- in view of deficit in the assets to meet the liabilities of the creditors. Subsequently, the Special Officer, attached to Primary Agricultural Co-op Bank, Varathampalayam, Kattampatty Post, had also sent a communication to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies requesting him to initiate a case against the Secretary K. Shanmugasundaram and the Cashier-cum-Senior Clerk M. Prabhakaran/third respondent herein, on the ground that they had committed fraud and caused loss to the Co-operative Bank to the tune of Rs. 13,30,000/-. Before initiating arbitration proceedings to recover the said amount, a resolution had been passed to initiate attachment proceedings before Judgment. Thereafter, the Special Officer had filed A.R.C. No. 83 of 2004, before the Co-operative Societies Forum, Coimbatore, against the Secretary K. Shanmugasundaram and the Cashier-cum-Senior Clerk M. Prabhakaran/third respondent herein to recover the said amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies had issued notice to the said Secretary and Cashier-cum-Senior Clerk. 2. That on 30.11.2004, the Secretary/Special Officer of the Co- operative Bank had sent a communication to the Deputy Registrar informing that he is withdrawing the case in A.R.C. No. 83 of 2004 since attachment order before Judgment has to be executed against the said two persons. Thereafter, the said case was adjourned from time to time and finally it was dismissed. The Deputy Registrar had issued notice to the third respondent herein to furnish security for a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- and also informed that his immovable properties will be conditionally attached under Section 167 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act. Thereafter, the District Registrar had issued a notice, dated 06.07.2005, in Form No. 9 to execute the decree award amount and brought the immovable properties belonging to the third respondent and his wife Sumathi/appellant herein for auction on 22.07.2005. Thereafter, the appellant had preferred an appeal in C.M.A. No. 102 of 2005, before the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, challenging the said sale notice, dated 06.07.2005. Thereafter, the appellant had preferred an appeal in C.M.A. No. 102 of 2005, before the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, challenging the said sale notice, dated 06.07.2005. In the meantime, the auction purchaser K. Krishna Grounder/first respondent herein had filed an execution application in E.A. No. 61 of 2006 in E.P. No. 2 of 2004 in Surcharge Order No. 14 of 2004, before the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, and prayed for delivery of possession through the Commissioner of Court by issuing warrant for effecting delivery of possession. 3. The learned Principal District Judge, by Judgment and Decree, dated 21.08.2012, had dismissed the appeal in C.M.A. No. 102 of 2005, observing that the appellant had received sale notice, on 12.07.2005, however, she had not chosen to file any application to raise the attachment. Besides, she had also not established that the property was not liable for attachment and hence the amount recoverable by the Bank had been enhanced to Rs. 20,00,000/- again an order of attachment before Judgment, dated 16.04.2004 was passed. The appellant had filed a revision against the dismissal of the appeal in C.M.A. No. 102 of 2005. Further, she had filed E.A. No. 221 of 2013 in E.A. No. 61 of 2006, before the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, to record her resistance and obstruction on the ground that she is the absolute owner of the property and she had also filed another execution application in E.A. No. 223 of 2013 to set aside the sale. 4. The auction purchaser/first respondent herein as well as the second respondent had contested E.A. Nos. 221 of 2013 and 223 of 2013 by filing counter statements. These applications were dismissed by the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, in a common order, dated 05.03.2015. Against the said order, this civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred. 5. The highly competent counsel Mr. V. Sivakumar appearing for the appellant has filed written arguments stating that the appellant herein is the owner of the immovable property, measuring about 3.25 Acres, purchased by her under a registered Sale Deed, dated 12.04.2002, and registered as document No. 1136 of 2002. Her husband/third respondent herein is said to have committed some irregularities along with the President of the Bank and the Accountant therein. Her husband/third respondent herein is said to have committed some irregularities along with the President of the Bank and the Accountant therein. For the above said irregularities, initially an arbitration proceedings in A.R.C. No. 83 of 2004 was initiated against her husband/third respondent and two others under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. While the arbitration proceedings were pending, her husband's properties were attached on 12.01.2004 and 16.01.2004. Subsequently, the said arbitration proceedings initiated under A.R.C. No. 83 of 2004 were withdrawn by the second respondent on 01.12.2004 and hence there was no attachment of properties by the second respondent. Subsequently, the second respondent had conducted an enquiry, under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and passed order, dated 11.05.2005, in Surcharge Proceedings No. 14 of 2004. Thereafter, without any attachment order, her property was brought for sale and on 22.07.2005, a public auction was conducted and in the said auction the first respondent became the successful bidder. She had preferred an appeal before Principal District Court, Coimbatore, in C.M.A. No. 102 of 2005 challenging the said sale notice, dated 06.07.2005 and the same was dismissed on 24.08.2012. Against which, she had preferred revision in C.R.P.(NPD) No. 759 of 2013 before this Court and the same was dismissed on 22.11.2013. Against which, she had preferred a special leave petition in S.L.P.(Civil) No. 8546 of 2014, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was also dismissed on 11.04.2014. Hence, she has preferred a review and the same is pending before this Court in S.R. stage. 6. Further, the highly competent counsel has submitted that the first respondent had filed E.A. No. 61 of 2006, before the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, for delivery of property, under Rule 130(1) of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act r/w Order XXI Rule 35(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the said proceedings, the appellant had filed an obstruction petition in order to resist the delivery of possession as claimed by the first respondent in E.A. No. 221 of 2013 and she had also filed E.A. No. 223 of 2013 to set aside the sale. Both were dismissed by the Execution Court on 05.03.2015. 7. The highly competent counsel has further submitted that the appellant had purchased the suit property out of her own income. Both were dismissed by the Execution Court on 05.03.2015. 7. The highly competent counsel has further submitted that the appellant had purchased the suit property out of her own income. Whereas the misappropriation of the funds of the Bank and an enquiry under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act were pertaining to the period much after the purchase of the property by the appellant on 12.04.2002. Moreover, the second respondent had not stated anything for what purpose the appellant's property had been included with the property of her husband at the time of attachment and the second respondent had not pleaded anything that the property was purchased out of the fund misappropriated from the Bank. 8. Further, the highly competent counsel has submitted that Section 2(16) of the Co-operative Societies Act is very clear about the definition of members and non-members of the Society. Under the said definition, the appellant herein is a non-member of the Society and therefore, her property should not be attached and should not be brought for sale. Any such adventure undertaken, is an illegal and void ab initio. Hence, any attachment of the property of a non-member is null and void and any proceedings taken on the basis of an auction is void ab initio and it has no legal sanction at all. Further, as per Chapter XVI Sections 143(b) and 144 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, the second respondent is entitled to recover amount only from the member of the Society alone. This definition does not contemplate or give any authority to the second respondent to attach or to bring any non-member's property for sale. Moreover, the appellant herein was not a party to the proceedings initiated by the second respondent in either arbitration proceedings in A.R.C. No. 83 of 2004 or surcharge proceedings initiated under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. 9. The highly competent counsel has further submitted that as per Chapter XIX Section 167 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, only the person alone, against whom surcharge proceedings or arbitration proceedings were taken, is liable to furnish security. As the appellant herein is not a member of the Society nor any of the above said proceedings were taken against her, the second respondent has no legal authority to ask for any security or attach her property on her failure to furnish security. As the appellant herein is not a member of the Society nor any of the above said proceedings were taken against her, the second respondent has no legal authority to ask for any security or attach her property on her failure to furnish security. From the said provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and the facts of the case narrated sofar, the second respondent has been neither vested with any power to attach the appellant's property nor to bring it for sale. The action of the second respondent is totally without any sanctions of legal provisions and an uttermost illegality and irregularities have been committed during discharge of his official duty. The said action has no legal validity and it is absolutely a void exercise. Because of the said facts, neither the second respondent nor the first respondent herein have any right to claim for possession of property from the appellant under Order XXI Rule 35(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. Further, the highly competent counsel has submitted that unless the property is provisionally attached, it could not be brought into sale by any decree. The second respondent had attached the properties in the proceedings in A.R.C. No. 83 of 2004 under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, but it was withdrawn on 01.12.2004 and subsequently surcharge proceedings were initiated in Sa. Pa. No. 14 of 2004, under Section 87 of the Act. There was no attachment effected in respect of the properties either under surcharge proceedings or thereafter before passing of a decree. Hence, a decree under surcharge proceedings is a decree without any attachment of properties. The previous attachment, which was effected by the second respondent in A.R.C. No. 83 of 2004 had gone because of withdrawal of arbitration proceedings under Government Order. In such circumstances, it is very clear that the property was brought into sale without any attachment of property. Hence, any auction conducted on the basis of the decree in surcharge proceedings is nullity and no property can be settled in favour of auction purchaser on the basis of a void decree. 11. In such circumstances, it is very clear that the property was brought into sale without any attachment of property. Hence, any auction conducted on the basis of the decree in surcharge proceedings is nullity and no property can be settled in favour of auction purchaser on the basis of a void decree. 11. The highly competent counsel has further submitted that the Principal District Court, in the civil miscellaneous appeal, has held that the appellant has not established her right and title to the property in a manner known to law and she has not established that the property was not liable to attachment and there is no record to indicate that attachment before judgment was raised before sale. This Court, in the civil revision petition, has held that the appellant had not filed any petition or application under Rule 135 of the Act to raise the attachment and she had not established that she is the owner of the property in the manner known to law. The special leave petition filed by the appellant before the Apex Court was dismissed at the admission stage itself. Review petition filed by the appellant before this Court is pending. In the Apex Court has held that mere dismissal of special leave petition is no bar to review or exercise of any other remedy available against the order. As per the rulings of the Apex Court, there is no bar for the appellant herein either to peruse her remedy under review petition pending before the High Court or to file an application under Order XXI Rules 97 and 99 of C.P.C. Moreover, in (2011) 15 SCC 377, (1997) 3 SCC 694 and (2003) 12 SCC 219, the Apex Court has held that any third party, who is in possession and enjoyment of a property can resist the delivery of possession to a person under the provisions of Order XXI Rules 97 and 99 C.P.C and the Lower Court is bound to dispose of the said application as that of a suit and any order passed in the application is a decree for all practical purposes after the amendment in 1976. Unfortunately, the Principal District Court had never dealt with the case in whole and simply dismissed the execution application only on the ground of jurisdiction and maintainability, which is a patent error on face of record. Unfortunately, the Principal District Court had never dealt with the case in whole and simply dismissed the execution application only on the ground of jurisdiction and maintainability, which is a patent error on face of record. As per the said decisions, the appellant is entitled to resist the delivery of possession filed by the first respondent under Order XXI Rule 35 C.P.C. The lower Court is duty bound to dispose the application filed by the appellant under Order XXI Rules 97 and 99 C.P.C., as if that is a suit and deliver its Judgment in all points raised in the said application. In the instant case, the lower Court had simply held that the Co-operatives Act is a special legislation and it is a complete code. Therefore, all the provisions of C.P.C., are not readily available to the appellant. The Civil Court has a limited role to play in the operation of the Co-operative Societies Act and that too only as a designated Tribunal under the Act and not as a pure Civil Court. In the opinion of the Court, the role of the Civil Court in the instant case is limited to effect delivery and hence what is sought to be executed cannot be equated to a civil action in a Civil Court. The said observation and dismissal of E.A., filed by the appellant is dead against the provisions of Order XXI Rules 97 and 99 C.P.C., and also the rulings narrated by the Apex Court. In such circumstances, the appellant is legally entitled to question and resist delivery of possession filed by the first respondent and she is entitled to retain her possession and enjoyment of the property as a owner. The decree passed by the second respondent is void ab initio and any other further proceedings or sale certificates issued by the second respondent has no legal validity and it cannot be enforced before any Court of laws. The sale certificate issued to the first respondent is not legally valid and based on the said unenforceable sale certificate, the first respondent cannot claim any remedy before Civil Court under Order XXI Rule 35 C.P.C. Hence, for all these reasons, the highly competent counsel has prayed to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore. 12. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the civil miscellaneous appeal in C.M.A. No. 102 of 2005, preferred by the appellant, before the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, challenging the sale notice, dated 06.07.2005, was dismissed on 21.08.2012. Subsequently, the civil revision petition in C.R.P. No. 759 of 2013, filed by her challenging the dismissal of C.M.A. No. 102 of 2005, before this Court was also dismissed on 22.11.2013. The special leave petition filed by her challenging the dismissal of C.R.P. No. 759 of 2013 was also dismissed on 11.04.2014. Hence, the issue raised by her has attained finality. As per Rule 2(b) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988, a "Decree" means any decree, decision, award, order or certificate obtained or passed under the Act and it includes decree or order of a Civil Court and as such the appellant will be the judgment debtor. Therefore, she has no locus standi to invoke either Order XXI Rule 97 C.P.C., or Order XXI Rule 26(2) C.P.C., and hence the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge deserves to be confirmed and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 13. Further, the learned counsel has submitted that the District Court, which discharged its function as a Tribunal, has been constituted under the special enactment and the order passed by the Tribunal will bind on the parties and the appellant cannot invoke Civil Procedure Code, which is a general law to nullify the proceedings completed under the special enactment and to escape from the clutches of law, she cannot file vexatious and frivolous petitions by invoking the provisions of general law to delay the execution proceedings and as such this appeal is liable to be dismissed. Even if it is assumed that Order XXI Rules 97 and 99 C.P.C., will be applicable to the present case, as per Order XXI Rule 103, the proceedings adjudicated under Order XXI Rule 98 will be treated as a decree and order made thereon shall have the same force and be subject to the same conditions as to an appeal or otherwise as if it were a decree. As such, the appellant herein ought to have invoked the appeal remedy provided under C.P.C., and accordingly this revision petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. As such, the appellant herein ought to have invoked the appeal remedy provided under C.P.C., and accordingly this revision petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. By filing two execution applications, under Order XXI Rule 26(2) and Order XXI Rules 97 and 99, the appellant had made attempts to invoke two conflict provisions to protect her possession under C.P.C. The provision of Order XXI Rule 26(2) is meant to protect the interest of the judgment debtor, who suffered an order/decree, whereas it was not maintainable to protect the interest of the third party, who were not parties to any of the earlier proceedings. The provision of Order XXI Rules 97 and 99 is meant to protect the interest of other than judgment debtor and as such the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 14. The learned counsel has further submitted that asfar as the right, title and interest of the appellant has already been decided by the Lower Court, this Court and Apex Court, filing an application again by the appellant in any of the provision of law in the land seeking to decide right, title and interest will amount to constructive res judicata. In the instant case, a sale certificate was issued in favour of the first respondent by the competent authority under Rule 129(3) of Rules, 1988 in Form No. 10 on 02.09.2005 itself. As such, under Article 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to set aside the sale in execution of a decree, any such application by a judgment debtor ought to have been filed within 60 days from the date of execution of the sale certificate from 02.09.2005 i.e., on or before 02.11.2005, whereas in the present case, except for an appeal invoking Section 152(1)(a) of Act, 1983 in C.O.P.C.M.A. No. 102 of 005, before District Court, Coimbatore, no other proceedings were initiated seeking to set aside the sale certificate. 15. Further, the learned counsel has submitted that originally the third respondent was employed as a senior clerk in the second respondent Society and in the course of employment, the third respondent along with another person had defrauded the Society to the tune of Rs. 38,20,388/-. 15. Further, the learned counsel has submitted that originally the third respondent was employed as a senior clerk in the second respondent Society and in the course of employment, the third respondent along with another person had defrauded the Society to the tune of Rs. 38,20,388/-. On the said fraud, the second respondent, on 12.01.2004, had requested the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society to initiate proceedings as against the third respondent and another to recover the misappropriated amount and also raised a dispute under Section 90 of Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act. The second respondent had passed a resolution, dated 12.01.2004, to attach the property of the third respondent and Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued a notice, dated 12.01.2004, to the third respondent and another under Section 167 of Act, 1983 in C.A.M. No. 2 of 2004 in A.R.C. No. 83 of 2004. Pursuant to initiation of arbitration proceedings, the Deputy Registrar issued a notice, dated 20.01.2004, to the third respondent under Section 90 of Act, 1983 in A.R.C. No. 83 of 2004 and the same was received by him. While the arbitration was pending, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies had issued a notice, dated 16.04.2004, under Section 167 of Act, 1983 in C.A.M. No. 2 of 2004 to the third respondent to furnish security for a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- and on the failure of third respondent in furnishing the security, conditional order of attachment was passed by the Deputy Registrar attaching the property of the appellant, which was purchased from the funds of the third respondent in and by Sale Deed, dated 12.04.2002. At the said juncture, the second respondent, on 30.11.2004, had withdrawn the proceedings initiated under Section 90 of Act, 1983 in A.R.C. No. 83 of 2004 and on the same, the said arbitration proceedings were dismissed as withdrawn. The Deputy Registrar, after concluding the enquiry, initiated proceedings under Section 87 of Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and passed an order, dated 11.05.2005, against the third respondent. 16. The learned counsel has further submitted that on the said order, auction sale notice, dated 06.07.2005, was issued by the District Registrar, under Form No. 9 in E.P. No. 2 of 2004 in S.C. No. 14 of 2004, which was received and acknowledged by the appellant on 12.07.2004, on behalf of the third respondent. 16. The learned counsel has further submitted that on the said order, auction sale notice, dated 06.07.2005, was issued by the District Registrar, under Form No. 9 in E.P. No. 2 of 2004 in S.C. No. 14 of 2004, which was received and acknowledged by the appellant on 12.07.2004, on behalf of the third respondent. Further, auction notice was published by the Sales Officer, Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies in 'Daily Thanthi' newspaper on 13.07.2005 and auction notice, dated 18.07.2005, was issued by Sales Officer, Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The public auction for the sale of the said property was fixed on 22.07.2005 and on the same, the first respondent emerged as successive bidder. The said sale was confirmed on 22.07.2005, and sale certificate was issued on 02.09.2005. Though the appellant had sufficient knowledge about the legal proceedings and above said auction, suppressing all the said facts, she had been claiming that she is an innocent owner and filed an appeal in C.M.A. No. 102 of 2005 before the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore and the same was dismissed by an order, dated 24.08.2012. The appellant had challenged the said Judgment by filing revision in C.R.P. No. 759 of 2013, before this Court and the same was also dismissed by an Order, dated 22.11.2013, with an observation that the Lower Court is directed to dispose the petitions in E.P. No. 2 of 2004, which are pending now, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that Order. The appellant had also filed S.L.P. (Civil) No. 8546 of 2014, before the Supreme Court and the same was dismissed by order, dated 11.04.2014. 17. Further, the learned counsel has submitted that the first respondent had filed E.A. No. 61 of 2006 in E.P. No. 2 of 2004, before the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, under Rule 130 of Rules, 1988 r/w Order XXI Rule 35 C.P.C., for delivery of possession and the said application was returned by order, dated 10.09.2007, stating that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to order delivery of possession of the property and the appellant had to approach the Deputy Registrar of Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies for further action. Therefore, the first respondent filed a petition, on 24.09.2007, before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Coimbatore, seeking delivery of possession and the same was returned by order, dated 24.09.2007, advising him to take recourse, under Rule 130(1) of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Society Rules. He challenged the said order by filing W.P. No. 35629 of 2007, before this Court and this Court, by order, dated 23.11.2007, had dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, he filed a revision in C.R.P. No. 3900 of 2008 before this Court challenging the order, dated 10.09.2007, passed in E.A. No. 61 of 2006 in E.P. No. 2 of 2004, by the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, and the same was allowed by this Court, by order dated 15.11.2012, with a direction to the Principal District Court to number the application and dispose of the same within a period of six months. 18. The learned counsel has further submitted that during February, 2013, the appellant had filed E.A. Nos. 221, 222, 223 and 224 of 2013 in E.A. No. 6 of 2006 in E.P. No. 2 of 2004 in S.C. No. 14 of 2004, before the District Court, Coimbatore. The application in E.A. No. 221 of 2013 was filed under Order XXI Rules 97 and 99 C.P.C., to record the obstruction of the appellant and the application in E.A. No. 223 of 2013 was filed under Order XXI Rule 26(2) C.P.C., to set aside the sale. The appellant had also not pressed the application in E.A. No. 223 of 2013. Both the applications in E.A. Nos. 221 and 223 of 2013 were dismissed by the Principal District Court, by order, dated 05.03.2015, against which the present appeal has been filed. This Court, in the earlier order passed in C.R.P. No. 3900 of 2008 and C.R.P. No. 759 of 2013 has categorically directed the District Court to dispose of E.P. No. 2 of 2004, within a period of six months and within a period of two months respectively, whereas the appellant though party to the earlier proceedings in C.R.P. No. 759 of 2013 and contrary to the said order filed a miscellaneous petition seeking an order of stay of all further proceedings in E.A. No. 61 of 2006, on the file of the Principal District Court, Coimbatore, in E.P. No. 2 of 2004, on the file of the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The order passed in the miscellaneous petition operates contrary to the order passed by this Court in C.R.P. No. 3900 of 2008 and C.R.P. No. 759 of 2013, as such continuation of interim order passed in M.P. No. 1 of 2015, in the present civil revision petition will lead to miscarriage of justice and liable to be dismissed. Further, the first respondent had invested huge money and purchased the property through auction process during 2005, whereas for a decade he could not get the possession of the said property and he spent his life tenure in this legal battle being an innocent purchaser. Hence, the learned counsel has prayed to dismiss this appeal and to direct the learned Principal District Judge to take possession and handover the same to the first respondent without any further delay. 19. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has submitted that the third respondent and the Secretary attached to the second respondent Bank had committed a fraud and caused loss to the Bank to the tune of Rs. 13,30,000/-. Hence, attachment proceedings had been initiated as per the Co-operative requirements. Further, the appellant's property has been treated as her husband's property and hence sale notice has been served on her on 12.07.2005 and auction was conducted on 22.07.2005. In the said auction, the first respondent became the highest bidder and hence on 02.09.2005, a sale certificate was issued in his favour. As such, the first respondent is the sole owner of the subject matter of land. Subsequently, recovery proceedings had been initiated against the wrongdoers by the concerned authorities before the authorized authorities in accordance with law. Further, the entire findings and proceedings, on the basis of documentary facts, have been maintained by the second respondent herein and hence there is no shortcomings or lapses or irregularities. Therefore, the entire proceedings are appropriate for execution. Hence, the learned counsel has prayed this Court to dismiss the appeal. 20. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent has submitted that the second respondent had not mentioned the figure of the recoverable amount from him as well as the Secretary of the second respondent Bank. The Special Officer had initially filed a case in A.R.C. No. 83 of 2004, before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, against the third respondent and the Secretary on 12.01.2004. Subsequently, he had withdrawn the said proceedings on 01.12.2004. The Special Officer had initially filed a case in A.R.C. No. 83 of 2004, before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, against the third respondent and the Secretary on 12.01.2004. Subsequently, he had withdrawn the said proceedings on 01.12.2004. It clearly proves that in the absence of any prima facie case, the attachment before Judgment had been passed and proceeded against the third respondent and the appellant herein. The appellant is in noway connected with the alleged fraudulent activities. Further, the fraudulent allegations on liabilities cannot be furnished on the appellant herein by way of bringing her property on public auction, since the said allegation is of a criminal nature and not a civil one. The appellant was in darkness at the time of initiating recovery proceedings against the said two persons. As such, the action of the second respondent is in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the learned counsel has prayed this Court to allow the above appeal as the appellant is innocent and as the fourth item of properties stands in her name. Further, the title deeds also stand in her name and not in the name of the third respondent. The sale proceedings are making encumbrance over the third party/appellant's property. 21. From the above discussions, this Court is of the view that: i. The District Registrar of Co-operative Societies had issued a sale notice, dated 06.07.2005, bringing the appellant's properties situated at Kattampatti Village for sale. The appellant is not a party in the arbitration proceedings, which had been initiated by the Special Officer of the second respondent Bank. Further, the District Registrar of Co-operative Societies had not issued any prior notice to the appellant with regard to attachment of her immovable properties. Hence, the sale notice, dated 06.07.2005, issued by the District Registrar of Co-operative Societies is illegal, arbitrary and it is in violation of Articles 14 of the Constitution of India. ii. The District Registrar of Co-operative Societies had conducted a public auction, but he did not furnish the highest bid amount, loan amount and other particulars regarding auction expenditures, tax particulars and other miscellaneous expenditures by way of memo of calculation or any other detailed communication. The auction purchaser is equally a responsible person to give details regarding the auction amount, mode of payment etc., in his execution application. The auction purchaser is equally a responsible person to give details regarding the auction amount, mode of payment etc., in his execution application. In the absence of any particulars, the said execution application is not sustainable under law. Therefore, the execution application is not suitable for execution. iii. The Special Officer had initiated arbitration proceedings on 12.01.2004, to recover a sum of Rs. 13,30,000/- from the third respondent herein and the Secretary K. Shanmugasundaram. Subsequently, the said amount was enhanced to Rs. 20,00,000/- as per Order, dated 16.04.2004. No clear cut reason has been stated for the sudden enhancement and hence the recovery proceedings suffer from irregularities and shortcomings. iv. The Special Officer had initiated proceeding in A.R.C. No. 83 of 2004, before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies against the third respondent herein and Secretary K. Shanmugasundaram. The said case had subsequently been dismissed as withdrawn and hence as of now there is no contested decree after conducting a comprehensive trial. In such circumstances, the sale notice and the subsequent proceedings are not suitable for execution. Further, there is no crystal clear documentary proof or any memo of calculation or any oral evidence from the side of the second respondent Bank. Initially, the authorities attached to the second respondent Bank had initiated proceedings to recover a sum of Rs. 13,30,000/-, but subsequently they had enhanced it to Rs. 20,00,000/-. This kind of conclusion arrived at by the Special Officer has been made in an arbitrary manner and such a kind of proceedings, which have shortcoming, are not fit to be operated upon any further. v. The general view of this Court is that the subject land has not been involved in any findings or liabilities whatsoever for the said recovery amount. The recovery amount has to be classified as money obtained through fraudulent act committed by the third respondent and another. Therefore, the said amount has to be recovered from the concerned persons through alternative methods. Agricultural lands should not be auctioned under any circumstances, since the fingers and nails of the agriculturists are always in reach of the soil he attends to with an attitude of concentration in order to supply the general public with their food grains. Therefore, the said amount has to be recovered from the concerned persons through alternative methods. Agricultural lands should not be auctioned under any circumstances, since the fingers and nails of the agriculturists are always in reach of the soil he attends to with an attitude of concentration in order to supply the general public with their food grains. Those involved with agriculturists' operations do not on awakening look forward to bed coffee or other eatable enticements, neither has he time to indulge in sanitary luxuries like shower baths, cosmetics etc., which are the indulgement of the affordable. On the contrary, he simply picks up his plough on awakening and proceeds to his fields. Therefore, the agriculturists should be shown the greatest consideration and they should not be disturbed in any manner so that the balance of convenience is given its rightful course and social justice maintained at all times. vi. The sale certificate, dated 02.09.2005, was issued after collecting the entire bid amount. However, the second respondent herein had not sent any communication to the appellant and her husband regarding the amount to be recovered and the bid amount. Further, the second respondent has not produced memo of calculation regarding any further amount to be recovered from the third respondent or any balance amount/surplus amount to be paid either to the appellant or her husband/third respondent. In the absence of the required particulars, the entire sale proceedings have numerous shortcoming and vitiated. vii. On the same cause of action/allegation, the competent authorities of the Co-operative Societies can initiate criminal proceedings against the third respondent herein and the Secretary K. Shanmugasundaram, but the criminal proceedings cannot be proceeded against the appellant as a co-respondent or co-accused. The same principle will be applicable to the instant case/recovery proceedings as per the rights vested in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, since both Articles protect the appellant's fundamental rights and personal rights. The recovery proceedings affect the appellant's above mentioned rights, which are generated under parental law. The competent authority attached to the Co-operative Societies have observed that the appellant's property can be treated as third respondent's property. This view is the own opinion of the competent authority. But, the law and title deeds of the appellant do not permit the bringing of the property to a public auction. 22. The competent authority attached to the Co-operative Societies have observed that the appellant's property can be treated as third respondent's property. This view is the own opinion of the competent authority. But, the law and title deeds of the appellant do not permit the bringing of the property to a public auction. 22. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the highly competent counsel on either side and on perusing the typed set of papers, memo filed by the appellant as well as the views of this Court as stated above, this Court is of the view that this civil miscellaneous appeal is liable to be allowed. 23. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed and the order, dated 05.03.2015, passed in E.A. No. 221 of 2013 in E.A. No. 61 of 2006 in E.P. No. 2 of 2004, by the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, is set aside. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.