JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - These three revisions are directed against an order of the learned Additional District Judge, Berhampnr, in several miscellaneous proceedings instituted before him purporting to be u/s 49(2) of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as the Madras Act). As it appears, a proceeding was taken u/s 49(1) against members of the Board of Directors and various employees of the Central Co-operative Marketing Textiles Syndicate Ltd. with its registered office at Berhampnr on the allegation that there was dereliction of duty and these persons were negligent in discharge of their functions which they owed in trust to the Syndicate. After the order of the Registerer was passed u/s 49(1) of that Act in different applications purporting to be u/s 49(2), the learned Additional District Judge was moved to modify the order. C.R. No. 447 of 1968 is filed by the legal representatives of V.K.B. Raja and by one Nrusingha Nanda Panda, while Civil Revision No. 448 of 1968 has been filed by one Lakshman Tripathy and Civil Revision No. 449 of 1968 has been filed by P. Narayan Rao, Section Kaviratna, Sivaram Paricha Patnaik, N. Venkateswarlu, and Madhusudan Das. The objections of other persons as disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge are not before this Court. 2. At the opening of the hearing, Mr. Ramdas placed before me the order of the Registrar dated 4-9-1963. In paragraph a of the order it has been stated: My predecessor Shri A.C. Bandopadhyay passed orders on 15-11-1961 rejecting these objections and holding that proceedings have been validly started u/s 49 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932 and they continue u/s 70 of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1951. Although it was so stated in one part of the impugned order of the Registrar, the order proceeded on the basis that is was one u/s 49 of the Madras Act. The Petitioners before this Court being misled by the fact that the order was one u/s 49 of the Madras Act proceeded to take action u/s 49(2) of that Act. The Petitioners before this Court being misled by the fact that the order was one u/s 49 of the Madras Act proceeded to take action u/s 49(2) of that Act. Objection was not taken before the learned Additional District Judge by the opposite parties that proceedings before the learned Additional District Judge were not maintainable under the Madras Act as it was really one u/s 70 of the Orissa Act, and in the absence of such objection the learned Additional District Judge proceeded to exercise jurisdiction u/s 49(2) of the Madras Act. As it now transpires and as Mr. Rath for the opposite parties brings to my notice under the provisions of Section 4 of the Orissa. Co-operative Societies Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Orissa Act) all such proceedings which were pending on the date when the Act was brought into force on 1-1-1955 must be taken to be under the Orissa Act and as such the final order of the Registrar must be taken to be one u/s 70 of the Orissa Act. One of the contentions raised by Mr. Ramdas before me is that if it was an order u/s 70 of the Orissa Act, the delinquents had a right of appeal before the State Government. In view of the fact that the order must be taken to be one under Section 70 of the Orissa Act, remedy before the learned Additional District Judge was not available and a proceeding u/s 49(2) of the Madras Act, was not competent. 4. I find there is sufficient scope for confusion of parties. The ultimate order did not indicate that it was being passed u/s 70 of the Orissa Act. That the parties were aggrieved by the order and wanted relief is manifest from the act that they approached the learned District Judge u/s 49(2) of the Madras Act immediately thereafter. Objection to the maintainability of the proceeding before the learned Additional District Judge was not taken by the opposite parties. The cumulative effect of these circumstances should be that all parties erroneously took the order of the Registrar to be one u/s 49 of the Madras Act while in law the order must be held to be one u/s 70 of the Orissa Act. The cumulative effect of these circumstances should be that all parties erroneously took the order of the Registrar to be one u/s 49 of the Madras Act while in law the order must be held to be one u/s 70 of the Orissa Act. In the circumstances, the forum which was chosen by the Petitioners and was not objected to by the opposite parties is not the proper forum and the order impugned before me must be taken to be without jurisdiction. The order must, therefore, stand vacated as being passed by an authority without jurisdiction in law. 5. While vacating the order of the learned Additional District Judge as being without jurisdiction, I bold that the order of the Registrar was one u/s 70 of the Orissa Act and Mr. Rath for the opposite parties concedes to the position as already indicated. I must also bold and make it dear that there was scope for misconception as to whether it was really one u/s 49 of the Madras Act or u/s 70 of the Orissa Act. 6. On my finding that the order is u/s 70 of Orissa Act, an appeal lies to the State Government as already indicated and therefore, I need not interfere with the order of the learned Additional District Judge on merit as it was passed without jurisdiction. It is open to the Petitioners to move Government in appeal against the order of the Registrar and I understand, as Mr. Ramdas states at the Bar, that such an appeal is already pending before the Government. That appeal is, therefore, available to be disposed of in accordance with law. The order of the learned Additional District Judge must stand vacated and the State Government would dispose of the appeal not taking into account the decision of the learned Additional District Judge. The State Government would independently come to their decision in the matter. In the aforesaid circumstances, these three Civil Revisions must stand allowed and the impugned order must be quashed. It is obvious that the State Government in disposing of the appeal against the order u/s 70 of the Orissa Act would give reasonable opportunity to the parties to be heard in consonance with the principles of natural justice. Parties will bear their own costs of these revisions throughout. Final Result : Allowed