The petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of the revision petition filed before the Co-operative Tribunal, on grounds of delay. Admittedly the revision was filed delayed and there was a delay of 33 months in filing the revision. Ext.P1 was the award passed against the petitioner herein. The petitioner contends that the petitioner was not heard before an award was passed. However, the petitioner does not indicate as to the date on which the copy of the award was served on the petitioner or obtained through an application. There is no explanation for the non-appearance before the Arbitrator, despite notice having been served on the petitioner. 2. The petitioners contention is that the petitioner is unable to satisfy the amount and the petitioner may be permitted to re-agitate the dispute before the Arbitrator. With respect to the question of delay in revisions under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act,1969, (for brevity, 'the KCS Act') though no specific period is provided for filing a revision, this Court has considered the issue and found that the revision should be filed within a reasonable period.
3. A Full Bench of this Court has in Moideen Koya v.
Kunhammed Haji [1992 (2) KLT 646 (F.B.)], with respect to Rent Control Proceedings and the revision provided therein, held that even if there is no limitation provided, the revision ought to have been filed within a reasonable time. The Full Bench approved the decision of a learned Single Judge in Narayanan v. Rent Controller [1988 (2) KLT 74]. Yet another learned Single Judge applied the dictum in the afore-cited decisions to the KCS Act in Thajuddin Shameer v. Secretary, Coastal Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. [2004 (1) KLT 909]. In the present case, admittedly the revision was filed after 33 months which, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be a reasonable time.
4. The next contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was that, the order should be communicated to the defaulter, as contemplated under Rule 68 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969.
However, Rule 68 is only a mode of communication with respect to orders; and it is not a mandate that recovery can be effected only after such service is made. Lalithamma v. M.S.Co- operative Society [1979 KLT 894] was cited to contend that the provision was mandatory. This Court does not see any such declaration in Lalithamma (supra). What the Court said was looking at the period provided for appeal under Section 82 and the impact of Rule 68, the time taken for obtaining the certified copy should also be excluded in determining the period of limitation.
5. It is also pertinent that though Rule 69 provides that a copy of the award should be sent to the petitioner, this Court has in Lalithamma (supra) held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act would not be applicable. But, however, going by the aforecited precedents, the aggrieved party would have to state the date on which such award was received so as to compute the reasonable period, within which the revision had to be filed. As is noticed earlier, neither the application filed for condonation of delay nor the writ petition discloses any such dates. The writ petition is hence found to be devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. However, if the petitioner approaches the respondent Bank with a request for payment in instalments, the respondent Bank shall grant 10 equal monthly instalments to pay off the entire amounts.
The writ petition would stand dismissed.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB // true copy // P.A To Judge.