The petitioner is aggrieved with the Award passed at Ext.P1. Admittedly, the respondent had filed an A.R.C under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, (for short 'the Act') before the Assistant Registrar. The contention of the petitioner is that, the Claim itself was hit by limitation since the Claim was of the year 2005 and the Arbitration case filed was in 2008.
2. This Court has in Lalithamma v.
M.S.Co-operative Society (1979 KLT 894) held that the Limitation Act would not be applicable to proceedings under the Act. Further more, it is to be noticed the exact date on which limitation started running and the Claim WP(C).27714/14 2 filed is not mentioned anywhere. Admittedly, the Claim was of the year 2005 and the Arbitration case was filed in the year 2008. Even if the three years' limitation is taken into account, the question is one of fact and law and there is a Revision provided under Section 82 of the Act.
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]. A 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 WP(C).27714/14 3 present case, the revision, R.P.14/2013 was filed belatedly with a delay of 1905 days and the Tribunal dismissed the same.
In the above circumstances, there can be no interference on Ext.P5. This Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot examine the Award passed. The petitioner having not filed the Revision within time as held in the afore cited decision, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN
Judge
Mrcs //True Copy//