CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners have prayed for quashing the award of the Arbitrator to whom a dispute was referred under S. 70 of the Mysore Co-operative societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Mysore Co-operative appellate Tribunal) (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) affirming that award. ( 2 ) THE petitioners are the heirs of one Thimmanna Bhatta who was the secretary of respondent 1 society. That society made a claim against the petitioners for recovery of monies alleged to have been borrowed by thimmanna Bhatta. According to the society, Thimmanna Bhatta had borrowed Rs. 1000 and Rs. 2500 on 16-7-1960 and 21-7-1960 respectively mortgaging his properties. The Arbitrator made an award in favour of the society, and that award was affirmed by the Tribunal. ( 3 ) MR. K. S. Savanur, learned Counsel for the petitioners assailed the award of the Arbitrartor and the appellate judgment of the Tribunal oh the following grounds: (i) The time limit for making a reference of the dispute under S. 70 of the Act had expired; (ii) The Arbitrator did not give reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to put forth their case and hence there was violation of principles of natural justice; and (iii) The Registrar should have directed respondent 1 society to bring a regular suit in a Civil Court under S. 71 (4) of the Act. Elucidating the first contention, Mr. Savanur argued that under the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 31 of the Mysore Co-operative Societies rules, the period of limitation for referring to the Registrar a dispute between a Co-operative Society and the heirs of a deceased officer of that society, is only two years from the date of any act or omission with reference to which the dispute arises and that as the bonds in question were stated to have been executed by Thimmanna Bhatta in the year 1960, the reference of that dispute to the Registrar in the year 1964 was time barred. ( 4 ) THE main part of sub-rule (2) of Rule 31 provides, inter alia, that the period of limitation for referring to the Registrar a dispute touching the business of a Co-operative Society, is six years from the date of the cause of action. ( 4 ) THE main part of sub-rule (2) of Rule 31 provides, inter alia, that the period of limitation for referring to the Registrar a dispute touching the business of a Co-operative Society, is six years from the date of the cause of action. As the debts sought to be recovered by respondent 1 society relate to its business, we think the period of limitation for referring such dispute to the Registrar is six years from the dates of borrowing by thimmanna Bhatta and the reference to the Registrar of this dispute made in the year 1964 was well within time. The proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 31 refers to a dispute pertaining to any act or omission by the soiciety or its committee on one hand, and its agents, officers or employees or their legal representatives on the other hand, arising from the relationship between them as principal and agent or as master and servant. ( 5 ) BUT in the present case though Thimmanna Bhatta was the Secretary of respondent 1-society, his borrowing from that society is not shown to be in his capacity as Secretary. There is nothing to show that his borrowing was otherwise than as an ordinary borrower from a co-operative society. In other words his borrowing had no connection with any relationship of master and servant between the society and him. Hence, we think the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 31 has no application to the present case and what is applicable is the period of limitation of six years provided in the main part of sub-rule (2 ). Thus we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Savanur that the reference of the dispute to the registrar was timebarred. Explaining the second ground, Mr. Savanur submitted that the records of the society relating to the present dispute, had been sent to the tribunal in connection with an appeal arising from another dispute decided by the Arbitrator, that the petitioners requested the Arbitrator to adjourn the proceedings in the present dispute till that appeal was disposed of and the records were received back from the Tribunal, and that the Arbitrator declined such request and proceeded to hear the parties and to make the award. Mr. Savanur contended that principles of natural justice were contravened by the Arbitrator's refusal to accede to the petitioner's request. Mr. Savanur contended that principles of natural justice were contravened by the Arbitrator's refusal to accede to the petitioner's request. ( 6 ) THE petitioners did not specifically state which particular documents or books among the records sent to the Tribunal, were required by them for adducing evidence before the Arbitrator; nor did they offer to produce certified copies of such documents. The Tribunal has held that in the circumstances of the case there was no denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioners on account of the Arbitrator not adjourning the proceedings before him till the records were received back from the Tribunal. We do not see any error apparent on the face of the judgment of the Tribunal to justify interfering with this finding of the Tribunal. ( 7 ) LASTLY, Mr. Savanur contended that the Registrar should have granted the petitioner's request that the Society should be directed to file a regular suit in a Civil Court in view of complicated questions that arose in the dispute. Mr. Savanur relied on sub-sec. (4) of S. 74 of the Act. That subsection provides that on an application of a Co-operative Society the Registrar may permit that society to institute a regular suit in a Civil Court if he is satisfied that in the interest of the Society and for proper and effective decision of the dispute, it is necessary to implead persons who cannot be made parties to the dispute in proceedings before the Registrar. ( 8 ) THAT subsection does not enable a party other than a society to make such an application. Nor is it shown that in the present dispute it was necessary to implead any person who could not be made a party to that dispute, for an effectual adjudication of that dispute. Hence, the contention that the registrar should have directed respondent 1-society to bring a regular suit before a Civil Court, has no substance. All the contentions of the petitioners fail and we dismiss this petition. As the respondents are absent and unrepresented, we make no order as to costs in this petition. --- *** --- .