THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 25062, 25063, 25064, 25065, 25066, 25068, 25069 and 25071 of 2002 Common order: In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have called in question the order dated 14.03.2002, passed by respondent No.2-Co- operative Tribunal, allowing the appeal filed by respondent No.1 and setting aside the Sale Certificate dated 24.05.2000 issued by petitioner No.3-Senior Inspector/Sale Officer, District Co-operative Central Bank, Chittoor, on the ground that recovery proceedings were initiated after expiry the period of limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.2 passed the impugned order without looking into the materials placed by the petitioners. He further submitted that there is no nexus between the expiry of the term of Board of Directors and recovery of the loan amount advanced to respondent No.1. He further submitted that since respondent No.1 executed agreement (hypothecation) for the cash credit on 28.11.1997, and in view of the resolution passed by respondent No.1 accepting the condition imposed by the petitioners in their letter dated 08.10.1997, the three years limitation has to be reckoned from 28.11.1997, and if the limitation is reckoned from that date, the three years period would expire on 28.11.2000, and since petitioner No.3 issued the Sale Certificate under Section 71 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 24.05.2000, it cannot be said that the recovery proceedings initiated by the petitioners are barred by limitation. Hence, he submitted that respondent No.2 has committed an error in holding that the recovery proceedings initiated by the petitioners are barred by limitation. He further submitted that respondent No.2 without application of mind to the facts of the case, particularly to the document executed by respondent No.1 on 28.11.1997, has passed the impugned stereo-typed orders. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the period of limitation has to be reckoned from the date of grant of loan. Apart from limitation aspect, respondent No.1 has raised several other issues, and since limitation issue is crucial, respondent No.2 considered the same and came to the conclusion that the recovery proceedings initiated by the petitioners are barred by limitation. He further submitted that under Section 71 of the Act, it is the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who has to issue the Sale Certificate, and since in the instant case, the Sale Certificate is issued by petitioner No.3-Senior Inspector, the same is without jurisdiction, and on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, the Sale Certificate issued by petitioner No.3 is liable to be set aside. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned Government Pleader for Co-operation for respondent No.3 Since it is the specific case of the petitioners that the limitation of three years has to be reckoned from 28.11.1997, on which date respondent No.1 executed agreement (hypothecation) for the cash credit, and considering the fact that the sale certificate was issued on 24.05.2000, the recovery proceedings initiated by them are within the period of limitation. Having regard to the fact that respondent No.2 did not take into consideration this document while dealing with the issue of limitation, and further having regard to the fact that respondent No.1 apart from raising the aspect of limitation, has also raised several other pleas and contentions, such as non-jurisdiction of respondent No.3 to issue the sale certificate etc., which were not considered by respondent No.2, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met, if the orders impugned in these batch of writ petitions are set aside and the matters remanded to respondent No.2 for adjudication of the matters afresh in the light of the materials placed by the parties in support of their respective pleas and contentions. Hence, the impugned orders passed by respondent No.2 are set aside. The matters are remanded to respondent No.2 for adjudication of the matters afresh in the light of the materials placed by the parties in support of their respective pleas and contentions, not only on the aspect of limitation, but also all the other aspects, and after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties, pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, expeditiously. Accordingly, this batch of writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 23rd July, 2010 KSR