@ ^ •p' l^ \ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR(C.G.| WRIT PETITldN N0. 2-"1^--3 /2005 I. , l<; X, •t PETITIONER >^s>'' '^^'''^''. ^^ y RESPONDENTS District Co-operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank, Mungeli Naka Bilaspur Through its Chief Executive Officer, Sri N. Gupta, S/o. Shri I. P. Gupta aged 47 years, R/o. Mungeli Naka Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS A. Registrar Co-operative Societies, Chhatisgarh.labhandi Raipur (ccr^) 2. Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chhattisgarh. labhandi.Raipur C e-<^ 3. Depufy Registrar, Co-operative , Societies, Chhattisgarh, Comosit Bulding Bilaspur. €£-•°>) 4. Kartik Ram Sahu, S/o. Sonau Ram Sahu Occupation - Ex- clerk, House No. C-104, Yadunandan Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUITABLE WMT, ORDERS OR DIRECTION. ^^~-.^-'?—^ •s—~'~ l\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition No. 2729 pf 2005 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS District Co-operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank, Bilaspur Registrar, Co-operative Societies and others Shri Sameer Shrivastava counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur Dy. AG respondents 1 to 3 Shri Sudhir Verma cpunsel for respondent No.4. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (15.09.2011) Challenge in the prfisent petition is to the order dated 7.6.2005 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.1 (Registrar, Co-operative Societies) dismissing the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act leading to consequent dismissal of the revisioin too. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 2.3.2005 respondent No.3 (Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies) had closed the right of the petitioner to adduce evidence during trial. The said order was assailed by the petitioner before respondent No.2 (Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies) by way of revision (Annexure P-3). Along wjth the said revision, the petitioner had also moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the revision. By the order impugned, the application for condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act came to be dismissed by respondent No.1 i.e. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, which consequently led to dismissal of the revision too. SL- 3. Counsel for the parties very fairly submit that the order impugned may be set aside with a direction to the Registrar, Co-operative Society to decide the revision No. 78 (1 )/36/05 on merit. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular the submission made by the counsel for the parties and keeping in mind that the present petition is pending since 2005 and stayis operating in favour of the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in un-necessarily continuing the same. Accordingly, impugned order dated 7.6.2005 passed by respondent No.1 is set aside. Respondent No.1 (Registrar, Co-operative Societies) is directed to decide the afore- mentioned revision on merit. The petitioner and the respondent No.4 shall appear before respondent No.1 along with the copy of this order on 29.9.2011 and the respondent No.1 shall decide the revision on merit as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months thenceforth. 5. Petition thus disposed of. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge