G. P. SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a registered Co-operative Society. Respondent No. 1 Dhulji is its member. The respondent No. 1 obtained a loan of Rs. 500 on 11-4-1955 and another loan of Rs. 300 on 28-2-1955 from the society. These loans have not been repaid. The society then filed a dispute before the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies Dhar on 15-1-1960. The petitioner did not appear on 5-12-1960 before the Assistant Registrar and the case was dismissed for default on that date. ( 2 ) IT may be mentioned here that in 1960 the Act applicable was the madhya Bharat Co-operative Societies Act, 1955 and the dispute was raised before the Assistant Registrar under Section 67 of the said Act. The Madhya bharat Act was repealed by the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 which came into force on 15-5-1962. The petitioner again referred the dispute about non-payment of the loans under Section 64 of the new Act. The petitioner's claim was ultimately decreed by the Assistant Registrar, Dhar on 27-2 1973. The respondent filed an appeal to the Joint Registrar, which was allowed by Order dated 30-7-1977. It was held in this appeal that as the petitioner's claim was earlier dismissed on 5-12-1960 he could not raise another dispute regarding the same claim. The petitioner then filed an appeal to the board of Revenue, which was dismissed by order dated 30-4-1979. The view taken by the Board of Revenue was that the petitioner should have applied for restoration of the case, which was dismissed in default on 5-12-1960, and as he did not adopt that course he had no right to raise another dispute under the new Act for recovery of the loans after the lapse of a years. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges tht aforesaid orders of the Joint Registrar and the Board of Revenue. ( 3 ) SECTION 67 (2) of the Madhya Bharat Act provides that the Registrar may, on receipt of a reference of dispute decide the dispute himself, or transfer it for disposal to any person who has been invested by the Government wit h power in that behalf, or subject to such rules as may be prescribed, refer it for disposal to an arbitrator or arbitrators. Sub-section (6) of Section 67 made any decision of the Registrar final. Sub-section (6) of Section 67 made any decision of the Registrar final. There is no provision in the Madhye bharat Act making the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to the procedure applicable to the proceedings before the Registrar. The order of the Assistant registrar dated 5-12-1960 shows that he did not decide the dispute at all. He only noted that the petitioner and his counsel were absent and the respondent was present. He also noted that the respondent was not supplied with a copy of the plaint, meaning thereby the claim lodged by the petitioner after noticing all that the Assistant Registrar's report was : this order can only be construed as an order cither saying that the case is fifed or that the case is dismissed for default. It may have been open to the Assistant registrar to hold that as the petitioner-society has not come forward to lead any evidence, its claim is not proved and, therefore, it is dismissed But the order dated 5-12-1960 is not of that type. The Assistant Registrar did not go into the merits of the claim and as earlier pointed out he either directed that the record of the case be filed or that the case be dismissed for default Such an order does not decide anything and cannot be a subsequent proceedining on the same cause of action on the plea of res-judicata for the simple reason that the principle of res-judicata applies when there is a decision. The question then is whether such an order could bar a subsequent proceeding on the cause of action under Order 9, Rule 9, C. P. C. This question must also be answered infavour of the petitioner, because the Code of Civil Procedure terms has not been made applicable to the proceedings before the Registrar either under the Madhya Bhar at Act or the new Act. So far as the madhya Bharat Act is concerned, there is no reference to the Code of Civil Procedure at all. So far as the madhya Bharat Act is concerned, there is no reference to the Code of Civil Procedure at all. So far as the new Act is concerned, reference to the Code of civil procedure is made in Section 67, which deals with the powers of the Registrar to make interlocutory orders, including grant of a temporary injunction any case as under the Madhya Bharat Act the Code of Civil Procedure was not made applicable and as there was no decision ascotemplated by section 67 (2)of the Madhya Bharat Act, there could be bar no for raising a second dispute in respect of the same cause of action. The discute that was raised by the petitioner in 1968 in respect of the loans could not therefor bes resisted on the ground that an earlier dispute raised in respect of the same loans was dismissed for default on 5-12-1960. It could certainly be resisted on merit or on the ground that it was barred by limitation. So far as limitation is concerned, it is clear from Section 65 (1) (a) of the new Act that the period of limitation is six years from the date on which the member dies or cease to be a member of the Society. The respondent still continues to be a member of the society. The disute raised, therefore, was within limitation. On other facts, there is absolutely no dispute. The points on which the Joint Registrar and the Board of Revenue negatived the claim of the petitioner cannot be sustained. The petition had, therefore, to be allowed. ( 4 ) THE petition is allowed. The order of the Joint Registrar, dated 30-7-1973 and the order of the Board of Revenue dated 30-4-1979 are quashed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. The amount of security deposit be refunded to the petitioner, petition allowed. .