JUDGMENT Anil K. Sen, J. This is a revisional application at the instance of the judgment debtor directed against an order dated February 18, 1980 passed by the learned Judge, third Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Money Execution Case No. 44 of 1978. By the order impugned in the present revisional application, the learned Judge has overruled an objection raised by the petitioner to the execution by the opposite party, Ordnance Factories Directorate Co-operative Credit Society Limited. Challenging the said order, it has been contended before us that the learned Judge in the executing court should have upheld the objection of the petitioner and should have held that the arbitrator who ultimately made the award had not the jurisdiction to do so. 2. It would be necessary to refer to the facts in order to understand the real nature of the objection and decide the issue. Such facts are not disputed and may be set out briefly as follows. The opposite party Society raised a dispute claiming recovery of a sum of Rs. 11.900/- with interest against the petitioner, a member of the Society and another such member. Such a dispute coming under the purview of S. 86 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, the Assistant Registrar of Co Operative Societies, being vested with the necessary powers appointed the Inspector of Co-Operative Societies, Arbitration No. 1, Calcutta to be the Arbitrator to arbitrate over the said dispute. Such appointment was obviously made under S. 81(1)(c) of the Act. At the material time of such appointment Sri B. Das was the Inspector of Co-operative Societies, Arbitration No. 1 and he started the arbitration proceeding and carried it on for some time. He was however later transferred and Sri A.C. Banerjee who replaced him as the Inspector of Co-operations, Arbitration No.1 ultimately made the award which being put into execution the present objection has been raised. The objection raised before the executing court is that since. Since Sri B. Das was transferred, his successor Sri A. C. Banerjee could not have automatically assume jurisdiction to proceed with the reference in the absence of a fresh appointment it in his favour in terms of Rule 134(C) of the Rules framed under the Act. The objection raised before the executing court is that since. Since Sri B. Das was transferred, his successor Sri A. C. Banerjee could not have automatically assume jurisdiction to proceed with the reference in the absence of a fresh appointment it in his favour in terms of Rule 134(C) of the Rules framed under the Act. This objection has been overruled by the executing court on the view that since Sri B. Das was not personally appointed the arbitrator, there was no necessity of transferring the case or make any fresh appoinment for the purpose Inspector of Co-Operative Societies, Arbitration No.1 having been appointed the arbitrator, Sri A. C. Banerji as the successor to the office could very well continue the arbitration proceeding and make the award as holder of the post of such an Inspector. 3. In challenging the order of the executing court, Mr. Ghosh appearing in support of this revisional application has contended that in law no appointment could be made by designation, so that Sri B. Das the then Inspector of Cooperative Societies Arbitration No. 1 was really appointed the arbitrator and when he was transferred it was necessary for the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies to follow the provisions of Rule 134 of the Rules and make anew appointment. That not having been made, the award as made by Sri A. C. Banerjee is totally without jurisdiction and such as objection can very well be raised at the execution stage. Mr. Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the opposite party has contested the points raised by Mr. Ghosh. According to him appointment as made by the designation, quite in accordance with law and such being the appointment, Sri A. C. Banerji as a successor in office was quite competent to make the award without any fresh appointment in his favour. Reliance is placed by him on S. 16 of the Bengal General Causes Act. 4. Considering the rival contenti0ns raised before us, we arc of the view that there is ample substance in the stand taken by Mr. Chatterjee. Section 87(1) (c) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act empowers the Registrar to appoint an arbitrator for the purpose of arbitrating on a dispute under reference. 4. Considering the rival contenti0ns raised before us, we arc of the view that there is ample substance in the stand taken by Mr. Chatterjee. Section 87(1) (c) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act empowers the Registrar to appoint an arbitrator for the purpose of arbitrating on a dispute under reference. Such being the power vested by the statute in the Registrar to appoint a person to exercise the functions of on arbitrator, such appointment could lawfully he made either by name or by virtue of office, S. 16 of the Bengal General Clauses Act authorises such appointment in the alternative. Such a appointment by virtue of office having been made in the present case. it was a valid appointment in law and therefore the successor in office derived his power to discharge his function as an arbitrator by virtue of the initiat appointment by virtue of office. The view taken by the executing court in this regard is well supported by high authorities. Reference may be made to the decisions in the cases of (1) Public Prosecutor v. Narkidlmili AIR 1960, AP 282(2), S. Muthukomaran v. State of Kerala AIR 1968 Rev. 330, (3) Rosik Lal v. State Gujrat 1967 Cr. LJ 1105 and (4) Abdul Hossain v. State of Gujrat AIR 1968 SC 432 . Relying on Rule 2(2)(c) and Rule 129 it has been contended by Mr. Ghosh that an appointment under S. 87(1)(c) on only be made in favour of particular Government Servant and not by virtue of the office held by him. We find little substance in such a contention. Rule 2(2)(c) adopts the definition of the term as in General Clauses Act. Rule 129 only specifies the eligibility of the person to be appointed. These provisions however do not abrogate application of S. 16 of the Bengal General Clause, Act. It has next been contended by Mr. Ghosh that the view we are taking would render Rule 134(c) nugatory. That Rule merely provides that when a Government officer is appointed as arbitrator in case of resignation, transfer, suspension or dismissal, the Registrar may withdraw the reference and make a fresh appointment. Such a provision is not rendered nugatory by the view we have taken because in the even a Government officer is so appointed by name and not by virtue of his office, this Rule will have its application. 5. Such a provision is not rendered nugatory by the view we have taken because in the even a Government officer is so appointed by name and not by virtue of his office, this Rule will have its application. 5. For reasons aforesaid we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Ghosh that the award under execution is without jurisdiction and we must uphold the decision of the executing court in this regard. The revisional application, therefore, fails and is dismissed. “There will be no order for costs. B. C. Chakrabarti. J. ; I agree. Application dismissed.