Judgment :- 1. This appeal is against the judgment of T.K. Joseph, J., disposing of three writ petitions (O.P. Nos. 46, 47 and 48 of 1955) preferred by three different persona against the same respondents for the same reliefs. The 4th respondent in the above three Writ Petitions is the appellant herein and he has impleaded the petitioners in the Writ Petitions as respondents 1, 2 & 3 in this appeal. Though the three Writ Petitions had been disposed of by one judgment, there is in the eye of law a judgment in each Writ Petition capable of forming the basis of a separate appeal. One appeal against the decision in three cases is not maintainable. This appeal is therefore treated as an appeal against the decision in O.P. No. 46 of 1955 only, since the Ist respondent is the petitioner in that O.P.; and the names of respondents 2 and 3 will stand removed from the array of parties. As this defect in the institution " of this appeal was not pointed out by the respondents they are not awarded costs in this proceeding. 2. The question in this appeal is whether the Government exercising revisional powers under the Co-operative Societies Act, has the power to review its own decision. 3. A suit was instituted by the Avanakuzhi Neithuvyavasaya Co-operative Society No. 2387 against eight defendants, of whom the first was its former Secretary, the second the then President and Treasurer & Nos. 3 to 8 members of the committee of management, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,609-8-8 said to have been misappropriated by them. The suit was decreed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies primarily against defendants 1 & 2 and secondarily against the other defendants to be proceeded against if the amount is found irrecoverable from defendants 1 and 2. The 2nd defendant preferred an application for revision before the Government and the Government dismissed the same on 22nd June 1953. But on an application, dated 15th July 1953 by the 2nd defendant to review the same, the Government modified its prior decision by an order, dated 25th March 1955 and held all the defendants to be jointly and severally liable for the suit claim. But on an application, dated 15th July 1953 by the 2nd defendant to review the same, the Government modified its prior decision by an order, dated 25th March 1955 and held all the defendants to be jointly and severally liable for the suit claim. Writ Petition No. 46 of 1955 was filed by the 7th defendant challenging the jurisdiction of the Government to review its former decision, and the learned Single Judge held: "It is conceded that the Co-operative Societies Act does not contain a provision for review. Unless the power of review is conferred by the statute the Government cannot have jurisdiction to exercise such power. This is a well-established proposition and it is unnecessary to refer to the innumerable decisions on the point, Mr. Subramonia Iyer, J., has referred to several of these decisions in V. Kesavan v. K.S. Raghavan & others (AIR. 1953 T-C. 439). Apart from the statute, the Government as a revisional authority cannot be held to have any inherent power of review The order on the review petition being one passed without jurisdiction must be and is quashed ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ Hence this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any provision in the Co-operative Societies Act or the rules framed thereunder to sustain a power of review in the Government exercising revisional powers in the matter of an arbitration under the Co-operative Societies Act. He, however, laid stress on S.13 (1) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act (Act VII of 1125), and contended that a power of revision having been conferred on the Government by the Co-operative Societies Act the same may be exercised from time to time as occasion may require and that therefore in second exercise of that power the Government can review or modify its prior decision. We are unable to accede to this ingenuous argument. 5. We are unable to accede to this ingenuous argument. 5. S.13 (1) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act reads: "Where an Act confers a power or imposes a duty, then, unless the contrary intention appears, the power may be exercised and the duty shall be performed from time to time as occasion requires." This section obviously relates to a power which, by its very nature, is exercisable from time to time such as a power to grant licence to conduct a trade in a municipal area for a period of years or to grant a permit to run a stage carriage in a route for a term of years. The section cannot apply to a power the exercise of which results in a proceeding which is final in itself. A power conferred on a court to decide a case is not one exercisable from time to time in relation to the case, since by the very nature of the proceeding the decision once given is final. It is therefore said that unless an express power is conferred on a court it cannot reconsider a matter once decided by itself. S. 61 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1952 provides: "(1) Any decision passed by the Registrar or in case the paid decision has been revised by Government under S.86, the order of the Government, as the case may be, shall be final" The provision for finality of the decision or order indicates only that a further exercise of the power is not contemplated by the legislature. The power of revision conferred by S.86 of the Co-operative Societies Act is therefore one which is not within the purview of S.13 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act and the contention based on the latter section has therefore only to be overruled. 6. The revisional power of Government in the matter being only a statutory power, the limits of its extent must be sought in the statute that conferred the power itself. All that we find in the statute with reference to its exercise is in S.61 of the Act which provides only that an exercise of the power results in an order which is final, indicating thereby that the power having been once exercised the Government becomes functus officio in the matter. Admittedly no further power to review that order is provided for in the statute, or even in the rules. Admittedly no further power to review that order is provided for in the statute, or even in the rules. The decision in the O.P. is therefore correct. 7. The appeal fails. It is dismissed with costs. Dismissed.