Judgment : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge This petition has been filed against the judgment & decree dated 16.1.2009, whereby learned Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court) Shimla, H.P has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No.1, Rohru, District Shimla in Civil Suit No.111/1 of 2004. 2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) had supplied 18 bags of apple under the Market Intervention Scheme introduced by the State of Himachal Pradesh to the defendant on 22.9.2001 at its Apple Collection Centre Hanstari, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla. The defendant has failed to make the payment thereof to the plaintiff for sufficient long time inspite of repeated requests. This has led in filing the suit against the defendant for the recovery of Rs. 5500/-in the Trial Court. 3. The defendant has entered appearance and resisted and contested the claim of the plaintiff made in the plaint. Preliminary objections qua maintainability of suit for want of notice under Section 76 of the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 and that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties etc. were raised. 4. In replication, the plaintiff denied the contentions to the contrary raised by the defendant in the written statement being wrong and reiterated his case as set out in the plaint. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 17.12.2004:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of suit amount, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC? OPD. 3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff is stopped to file the present suit by his act, deeds and acquiescence? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdictions? OPD. 7. Relief:- 6. On appreciation of the evidence as well as record, the learned trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff has successfully pleaded and proved his case qua recovery of Rs.5500/- against the defendant. OPD. 6. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdictions? OPD. 7. Relief:- 6. On appreciation of the evidence as well as record, the learned trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff has successfully pleaded and proved his case qua recovery of Rs.5500/- against the defendant. On the question of maintainability, while answering issue No.2, it was observed that since the defendant has failed to show as to why the suit is not maintainable, the said issue was rightly decided against it. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court, the defendant preferred an appeal on several grounds, however mainly that on account of no findings recorded on merits on the question of maintainability of the suit for want of service of notice under Section 76 of the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act, the judgment and decree has vitiated and as such not legally sustainable. 8. Learned Lower Appellate Court, however, has discarded the case so set out by the defendant with the observation that such claim of the defendant is false in view of the wording of Sections 72 and 76 of the Act. The ratio of the judgment of this Court in Jawali Harijan Co-operative Agriculture Society versus Chet Ram 1991(2) Sim. L.C.142; relied upon on behalf of the defendant is also not taken into consideration for the reason that on facts the same is distinguishable. This has led in filing this appeal before this Court. 9. The defendant has assailed the judgment and decree passed by both Courts below in this petition as in view of the provisions contained under Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no second appeal lies from any decree, when the subject matter of the original suit for recovery of money not exceeds to Rs. 25,0000/-. 10. The legality and validity of the impugned judgment and decree has been questioned on the grounds inter-alia that both the Courts have erroneously ignored the provisions contained under Sections 76 of the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act and resumed the jurisdiction not vested with them while decreeing the suit. The legal objections were raised and demonstrated but the decree has been passed in complete departure to the objections so raised and, as such, has vitiated the findings recorded by the Courts below. The legal objections were raised and demonstrated but the decree has been passed in complete departure to the objections so raised and, as such, has vitiated the findings recorded by the Courts below. Since a specific issue was framed for maintainability of the suit on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the same otherwise should have been decided being legal in nature. 11. Mr. K.D.Sood, learned Senior Advocate has strenuously contended that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are vitiated on account of the failure of both Courts below to decide issue No.2 qua maintainability of the suit after taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties and also relevant provisions of law. It has therefore been urged that the suit could not have been decreed. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Y.P.Sood, learned counsel has contended that there being no iota of evidence to show that the transaction i.e. supply of 18 bags of apple to defendant society is touching its constitution, management or the business is not proved. Both the Courts below have rightly answered the controversy on issue No.2 against the defendant. 13. According to Mr. Sood, learned counsel, the defendant had merely collected the apple crop of the food growers of Rohru area in its collection centre Hanstari for and on behalf of the State Government and as such neither was conducting any business nor the dispute in the present lis touches the constitution, management or the business of the defendant society. 14. For the sake of convenience Section 76 of the Act is being reproduced as follows:- Notice necessary in suits:- No suit shall be instituted against a society or any of its officers in respect of any act touching the constitution, management or the business of the society, until the expiration of two months after notice in writing has been delivered to the Registrar or left at his office, stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left. Notwithstanding anything contained in section 72 a suit cannot be instituted against a society or any of its officers (concerning the constitution, management or business of the society) unless two months period has expired after notice in writing has been delivered to the Registrar, stating the cause of action. The object is to save the societies from unnecessary involvement in litigation and further to apprise the Registrar of the prospective disputes in which the society would be a party. 15. Now coming to the given facts and circumstances, as per own case of the plaintiff, he has supplied his 18 bags of apple under Market Intervention Scheme for sale at Hanstari in the collection centre of defendant society. Therefore, it is amply clear that the apple bags were supplied to the defendant society in the discharge of its business activity under the market intervention scheme. In preliminary objection, the defendant society has raised a specific objection qua maintainability of the suit for want of service of notice under Section 76 of the Act, and issue was also framed in this regard. The controversy under issue No.2 is legal in nature and the same should have been answered after taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties and in view of the own case of the plaintiff, as discussed supra. No other and further evidence was required to be adduced to substantiate the same. In replication there is denial simplicitor without any explanation as to how the suit was maintainable without service of notice under Section 76 of the Act. Therefore, the only inescapable conclusion would be that both the Courts below have failed to decide issue No.2 in accordance with law which has vitiated the findings as recorded and as such, the judgment and decree being perverse deserves to be quashed and set-aside. Otherwise also on merits, there seems to be no quarrel between the parties on both sides. 16. In the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, this Court can look into the question as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned. 17. In view of what has been said hereinabove, this appeal succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the judgment and decree under challenge is hereby quashed and set aside. 16. In the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, this Court can look into the question as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned. 17. In view of what has been said hereinabove, this appeal succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the judgment and decree under challenge is hereby quashed and set aside. The liberty is, however, reserved in favour of the plaintiff to file a fresh suit, if need so arise, after serving the defendant with notice under Section 76 of the Act. In the event of the fresh suit filed, it is expected from the defendant that the objection qua limitation shall not be raised. This petition is, accordingly disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.