ORDER : As, these appeals arise out of a common judgment passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Mandi, in Civil Appeal Nos. 11 of 2016, titled as Akashdeep Singh vs. Administrator, The Mandi Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Mandi, H.P., & Ors., the same are being disposed of by common judgment. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of these appeals are as under:- Appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibit injunction against the defendants inter alia on the ground that defendant No. 2, who was elected as a Director of the defendant/respondent No. 1-bank, allured the plaintiff for raising loan by alleging that he had already sanctioned a Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 20,00,000/- in favour of his son i.e. (defendant No.3). Being allured, plaintiff intended to raise a loan of Rs. 50,000/- but defendant No.2, allured the plaintiff for sanctioning loan of Rs. 2,00,000/-and out of this amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, defendant No.2 transferred Rs. 1,50,000/- in the C.C. Limit account of his son (defendant No.3). Thus, loan amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was transferred in the account of defendant No.3, by defendant No.2. Defendant No.3, stood surety for the aforesaid loan. Defendants No. 2 & 3 paid few regular installments to the bank against the aforesaid loan amount but thereafter they stopped paying the installments. The loan account was declared as Non Performing Assets. The case was sent for Arbitration, wherein learned Arbitrator passed an award in favour of defendant No. 2. Plaintiff agitated the matter by stating that as defendant No.2 had taken away an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the account of the plaintiff, hence the plaintiff was only liable to pay Rs.50,000/-. As per the plaintiff, even the defendant-bank had not opened any account of his at the time of raising loan and defendant No. 2 had obtained his signatures from a shop as the plaintiff had never visited the defendant-bank. According to the plaintiff, he had requested defendant No.2, on numerous occasion to realize the entire loan amount but defendant No. 2, did not do so which led to issuance of the orders of the auction of the suit land belonging to the plaintiff. He appealed to the revenue authorities against these orders but finally lost leading to the passing of the orders of the auction of his land. He appealed to the revenue authorities against these orders but finally lost leading to the passing of the orders of the auction of his land. It is in this background, that the suit was filed with the prayer that the defendants No. 2 & 3 be directed to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- towards the loan amount. 2. The suit was resisted by the defendants inter alia on the ground that the same was bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of parties and that there no cause of action had accrued in favour of the plaintiff, to file the suit. The same was also resisted on maintainability as well as being hit by the principle of resjudicata by defendant No.1. Defendants No.2 & 3 also denied the allegations leveled in the plaint and as per them, they had nothing to do with the loan which stood taken by the plaintiff from defendant No.1-bank. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties learned Trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration to the effect that defendant No.2 and 3 be declared as loanee of Rs. 1,50,000/- as prayed for? OPP. 2. If the issue No.1 is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of mandatory injunction directing defendant No.2 to repay the entire loan amount to the bank, as prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 4. Whether the present suit is not maintainable for want of notice under Section 76 of the HP Co-operative Societies Act, as alleged? OPD-1. 5. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit in view of Section 75 and 92 of the HP Co-operative Societies Act, as alleged? OPD-1 & 4. 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD-1. 7. Whether the plaintiff is stopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit, as alleged? OPDs. 8. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by principal of resjudicata, as alleged? OPD 1 & 4. 9. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for misjoinder and non joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPD 1 & 4. 10. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD-1. 11. OPDs. 8. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by principal of resjudicata, as alleged? OPD 1 & 4. 9. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for misjoinder and non joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPD 1 & 4. 10. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD-1. 11. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands, as alleged? OPD 1 & 4. 12. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80 of CPC, as alleged? OPD-4. 13. Relief. 4. On the strength of the evidence which was led by the parties concerned as well as the pleadings, the issues were decided as under:- Issue No.1 : No Issue No.2 : No Issue No.3 : No Issue No.4 : No Issue No.5 : No Issue No.6 : No Issue No.7 : No Issue No.8 : No Issue No.9 : No Issue No.10 : No Issue No.11 : No Issue No.12 : No Relief : The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed as per operative part of the judgment. 5. Vide judgment and decree dated 29.02.2016, the suit was dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court stood assailed by the plaintiff by way of Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2016 before the learned Appellate Court. Feeling aggrieved, by the adjudication on the issues, which were framed at the behest of the defendant-bank, said bank also preferred Cross Objection i.e. Cross Objection No.1 of 2016. 6. Vide judgment dated 02.01.2019, the appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff stood dismissed, whereas, the Cross Objections were allowed by the learned Appellate Court. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed these Regular Second Appeals. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below. 8. While allowing the Cross Objections, filed by the defendant-bank, learned 1st Appellate Court has returned the findings that the suit instituted by the plaintiff was not maintainable, being hit by the provision of Sections 75, 76, 92 of the H.P. State Co-operative Societies Act. 9. A perusal of the record demonstrates that indeed no notice in terms of Section 76 of the 1968 Act was served upon by the plaintiff upon the defendant-bank before filing of the suit. Ext. 9. A perusal of the record demonstrates that indeed no notice in terms of Section 76 of the 1968 Act was served upon by the plaintiff upon the defendant-bank before filing of the suit. Ext. PW-4/A, which according to the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff was the Notice, so served in compliance of the provision of Section 76 (supra), by no stretch of imagination can be said to be a Notice as is envisaged under Section 76 of the Act. This notice is not addressed to the Cooperative Society i.e. defendant No.1 but is addressed to defendant No.3, and contents thereof clearly demonstrates that it was a Notice in personam issued by the plaintiff to defendant No.3, highlighting the acts of defendant No.3 and his father defendant No.2, which purportedly led to the filing of the suit. 10. Be that as it may, fact of the matter remains that no Notice was served upon defendant No.3 by the plaintiff before instituting the suit and therefore the findings returned by the learned Appellate Court that the suit was hit by the provision of Section 76 of the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act are correct findings. 11. Now, incidently with regard to issues No. 1 to 3 framed by the learned Trial Court, onus to prove which issues was upon the plaintiff, there are concurrent findings returned by both the learned Courts below against the plaintiff. In other words, both the learned Courts have concurrently held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree of declaration that defendants No. 2 & 3 be declared as loanee of Rs.1,50,000/-. A perusal of the findings returned by the learned Trial Court on these issues, as affirmed by learned Appellate Court, demonstrates that these findings are duly supported by the pleadings on record as well as the evidence which was led by the parties to these issues. In other words, these findings returned by the leaned Courts below are clearly borne out from the record of the case. Besides this, the findings so returned per say are findings of fact and no question of law, leave aside any substantial question of law, indeed is attracted in these two appeals. In other words, these findings returned by the leaned Courts below are clearly borne out from the record of the case. Besides this, the findings so returned per say are findings of fact and no question of law, leave aside any substantial question of law, indeed is attracted in these two appeals. Record further demonstrates that as a result of the plaintiff failing to repay the loan obtained from the bank, the matter was referred to the learned Arbitrator and the award of the learned Arbitrator was against the plaintiff. This award was never challenged by the plaintiff as is evident from the findings returned by learned Courts below and plaintiff in fact sought time to deposit money in terms of the award. That being the case, it is apparent that subsequently filing of the suit by the plaintiff was nothing but an afterthought. Therefore, in view of the findings returned hereinabove, this Court is satisfied that no substantial questions of law is involved in these two appeals. 12. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant stated that as an application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for permission to lead additional evidence was not decided by the learned Appellate Court, therefore, these appeals deserve admission on this substantial questions of law. 13. I have carefully perused the record the record of the learned Appellate Court. In terms thereof, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the present appellant praying to lead additional evidence. The additional evidence which was sought to be led was by way of examination of one witness Smt. Charanjeet Kaur, W/o Sh. Gurcharan Singh, who as per appellant was allegedly shown as one of the guarantor of the loan application by forging the application form, though this witness had neither visited the bank premises nor appended her signatures upon the application. It stood averred in the application that this witness was material, and this fact had come to the notice of learned counsel for the appellant while preparing the file for arguments. As despite due diligence this witness could not be produced and examined before the learned Trial Court, therefore, prayer was made for the examination of this witness with liberty to lead additional evidence. Reply to this application is also on record. As despite due diligence this witness could not be produced and examined before the learned Trial Court, therefore, prayer was made for the examination of this witness with liberty to lead additional evidence. Reply to this application is also on record. Though the judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court does not deals with this application but to do justice to the parties, this Court called upon the learned counsel for the appellant to demonstrate as to why the application should have been allowed by the learned Appellate Court for the reason that it is well settled that in the garb of an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, party cannot be permitted to fill up lacuna in its case. Now, a perusal of the application demonstrates as already mentioned hereinabove that the intent of the appellant was to examine one witness which as per the appellant inadvertently could not be examined when the appellant led his evidence before the learned Trial Court. This is in the considered view of this Court, does not passes the test of the due diligence. Under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a party can be permitted to lead additional evidence if it satisfies the Court that the evidence which it intends to place on record despite due diligence was not in its knowledge earlier or the said evidence has come into existence subsequently. Both these tests are not satisfied even in terms of the averments made in the application. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that on this hyper technical ground, the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below cannot be set aside especially when the suit of the plaintiff is held to be not maintainable having been filed by not complying with provision of Section 76 of the 1968 Act. Hypothetically even if the application is/was allowed and the plaintiff is permitted to examine the witness, then also the lacuna of the suit being hit by the provision of Section 76 of the Act cannot be filled up, therefore, also, this Court is of the considered view that no substantial questions of law is involved in these appeals. 14. Accordingly, these appeals being devoid of any merit are dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.