JUDGMENT : Yashodanandan, J. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the Appellant's writ petition, he has filed this appeal. 2. Appellant Sudama Prasad Gupta was one of the members of Respondent No. 5 which is a Co-operative Society registered under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1912 (hereinafter referred to us the Society). The Society made a claim for an amount of Rs. 3781.16P against the Appellant. Under Rule 115 of the rules framed under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1912 (hereinafter referred to as the 1912 Act), the dispute was referred to arbitration. The Arbitrator found that the amount claimed by the Society against the Appellant had remained unpaid and consequently gave an award to that effect. The Appellant filed an appeal against the award of the Arbitrator which was dismissed on 5-6-1968. It may be mentioned here that though the arbitration proceedings had commenced under the 1912 Act, by the time the appeal was decided by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (U.P. Act No. 11 of 1966) had come into force. On the dismissal of his appeal by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies the Appellant preferred a second appeal before Respondent No. 2, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P. Lucknow. The second appeal was dismissed by the Registrar on 27-8-1968, on the ground that no second appeal was maintainable against the order of an Assistant Registrar passed in appeal. It appears that the Appellant also preferred a revision which was also dismissed on 31-8-1968 on the ground that the revision did not lie. 3. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his second appeal the Appellant filed a writ petition in this Court which was heard and dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge agreeing with the view taken by the Registrar that on account of the relevant provisions of the U.P. Act No. 11 of 1966 a second appeal was not maintainable in proceedings for arbitration commenced under Rule 115 of the rules framed under the 1912 Act, dismissed the writ petition. 4. The learned Single Judge agreeing with the view taken by the Registrar that on account of the relevant provisions of the U.P. Act No. 11 of 1966 a second appeal was not maintainable in proceedings for arbitration commenced under Rule 115 of the rules framed under the 1912 Act, dismissed the writ petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has contended before us that the view taken by the learned Single Judge was incorrect and unsustainable and that since at the time when the arbitration proceedings commenced, he had a right of tiling a second appeal against the order of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, this vested right which was of a substantive character, had not been taken away by any of the provisions of U.P. Act No. 11 of 1966. In support of his contention he placed reliance on a decision by B.N. Lokur J. in Thakur Dass v. Chagan Lal 1971 AWR 608. The question had directly arisen as to whether in proceedings for arbitration commenced while the 1912 Act was in force, the right of second appeal survived on the repeal of the 1912 Act by the U.P. Act No. 11 of 1966, and re-enactment of that Act. Lokur, J. while holding that the right of a second appeal survived on the coming into force of the U.P. Act No. 11 of 1966 and repeal by it of the 1912 Act, observed as follows: Section 132(1) and Section 134(1) of the Act of 1965 shall have to be construed harmoniously; Section 132(1) does not stale that its provisions shall have effect notwithstanding the provisions of Section 134(1). Section 134(1) clearly continues the right of appeal to the Registrar against the appellate orders of the Assistant Registrar and Section 132(1) would require a more clear cut provision to take away the effect of Section 134, particularly as it cannot be lightly held that a substantive right of appeal has been denied. Section 134(1) clearly continues the right of appeal to the Registrar against the appellate orders of the Assistant Registrar and Section 132(1) would require a more clear cut provision to take away the effect of Section 134, particularly as it cannot be lightly held that a substantive right of appeal has been denied. On the harmonious construction of Section 132(1) and Section 134(1) and on the general principle that a party can be deprived of a vested right of appeal conferred by an enactment only by the express language or necessary intendment of a subsequent enactment, I am of the view that the further appeal to the Registrar against the appellate orders of the Assistant Registrar provided by the Rules made under the Act of 1912 is intact and has not been taken away. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and with due deference to the learned Judge who decided the case Thakur Das v. Chagan Lal (supra), we find ourselves unable to agree with the conclusion arrived at by him The relevant part of Section 134(1) of U.P. Act No. 11 of 1966 on which considerable reliance has been placed by B.N. Lokur, J. runs as follows: 134(1). The Cooperative Societies Act, 1912 (Act II of 1912), as amended from time to time in its application to Uttar Pradesh, is hereby repealed and the provisions of Sections 6 and 24 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 (U.P. Act I of 1904), shall apply to the repeal of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1912 (Act II of 1912), as if it were an Uttar Pradesh Act. 6. This provision apart from repealing the 1912 Act declares that Sections 6 and 24 of the U.P. General Clauses Act will apply to the repeal of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1912. In fact, it was not necessary to incorporate in Section 134(1) that Section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act shall apply since it would have been attracted even in the absence of such a declaration of its own force. Section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act states that "where any Uttar Pradesh Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not- (a).... (b).... (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or (d).... Section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act states that "where any Uttar Pradesh Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not- (a).... (b).... (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or (d).... (e) affect any remedy, or any investigation or legal proceeding commenced before the repealing Act shall have come into operation in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid;.... 7. It may be readily conceded that a right of appeal is a substantive right and such a right vests in the party concerned on the date when an action commences. If there is no contrary intention expressed either specifically or impliedly in the U.P. Act No. 11 of 1966, then it may further be conceded that the Appellant had a right to file a second appeal against the order of the Assistant Registrar because he did have such a right under the 1912 Act and to pursue it. It appears to us, however, that Section 132(1) does express or in any case imply a different intention on the part of the Legislature within the meaning of Section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act. Section 132(1) is as under: Any suit, or other proceeding, inquiry or inspection instituted or commenced under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 (Act II of 1912), shall so far as may be, be deemed to have been instituted or commenced under this Act and may be continued accordingly. (Emphasis supplied - herein in italics). According to this provision, the arbitration proceedings initiated by the Appellant under the 1912 Act must be deemed to have commenced under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 11 of 1966 by a legal fiction but could be continued according to the provisions of U.P. Act No. 11 of 1966 alone. Under U.P. Act No. 11 of 1966 or the rules framed there-under there exists no provision for a second appeal against an order of an Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies in proceedings for arbitration. It is thus not possible to hold that the second appeal was either preferred or was sought to be continued according to the provisions of U.P. Act No. 11 of 1966. 8. It is thus not possible to hold that the second appeal was either preferred or was sought to be continued according to the provisions of U.P. Act No. 11 of 1966. 8. For the reasons given, we dismiss this appeal but in the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Interim order, if any, is vacated.