JUDGMENT H.N. Seth, Actg. C.J. - In all these four petitions, petitioner Shish Ram, claimed relief on similar grounds. They can be disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Petitioner, Shish Ram was a cashier of Bhoorgarhi Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd., district Meerut. Respondent No. 3 Hazar Singh in Writ Petition No. 3643 of 1976, Musaddi respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition Nos. 3644 and 3645 of 1976 and Nawab Ali, respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 3646 of 1976 had obtained loan from Bhoorgarhi Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Subsequently a controversy was raised as to whether or not the said respondents had repaid the amount borrowed by them and in that regard four references were made under section 70 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act for adjudicating the claim of the Bhoorgarhi Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. The defence of respondents No. 3 in all these cases was that they had paid back the entire amount of loan to the petitioner who was the cashier of the society. They also filed receipts said to have been obtained from the petitioner in support of their respective cases. The Arbitrator decided all the four references on 20-12-1974, by making awards based on similar reasoning. The Arbitrator observed that in all these cases Shish Ram had given evidence to the effect that he had neither received any amount from the three debtors nor did he issue any receipt to any of them. The Arbitrator accepted the statement made by Shish Ram in this regard and made an award against these debtors and accepted the claim made by the society. 3. Aggrieved the three debtors went up in appeal before the Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies. While the appeals were pending the three respondents took the stand that the document purporting to be the receipts from the petitioners filed by them before the Arbitrator appeared to have been substituted by forged document. They contended that Shish Ram had, in his statement before the Arbitrator, admitted his signatures on the receipts which had been filed by them. But then the receipt which are now found place on the record actually did not bear any signatures. It, therefore, appeared that the receipts that were available on record had been subsequently substituted. They contended that Shish Ram had, in his statement before the Arbitrator, admitted his signatures on the receipts which had been filed by them. But then the receipt which are now found place on the record actually did not bear any signatures. It, therefore, appeared that the receipts that were available on record had been subsequently substituted. The Assistant Registrar appears to have accepted the submission made by the debtors and held that Shish Ram had, before the Arbitrator, admitted his signatures on the receipts filed by the debtors and that these receipts had been surreptitiously removed from the record and substituted by forged document. In the circumstances he concluded that in fact the three debtors had paid back the entire amount of loan taken by them to petitioner, Shish Ram who had embezzled the same. The Assistant Registrar accordingly allowed the appeals filed by the three debtors and directed that the amounts involved be recovered from Shish Ram, the present petitioner. 4. Aggrieved Shish Ram has approached this Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shish Ram, vehemently contended that the appellate court had erred in directing recovery of the amounts involved from Shish Ram for following two reasons :- (i) No dispute regarding recovery of any amount by the Co-operative Society from Shish Ram had been referred for arbitration. The Assistant Registrar, therefore, had no Jurisdiction to direct recovery of any amount from him. (ii) There was absolutely no material on the record before the Assistant Registrar, to indicate that Shish Ram had, before the Arbitrator, admitted that he had actually signed the receipts filed by respondents No. 3. The inference drawn by the Assistant Registrar on the basis of arguments, raised on behalf of the three debtors did not constitute evidence for recording any finding by the Assistant Registrar. 5. Inasmuch as we are inclined to accept the first argument raised on behalf of Shish Ram, it is not necessary for us to express any concluded opinion on the question as to whether or not the finding recorded by the Assistant Registrar with regard to the receipts said to have been obtained by the three debtors is based on any evidence or not. 6. 6. So far as the first submission is concerned it cannot be disputed that and Arbitrator, under S. 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act, is entitled to decide only such dispute as is referred to him under the provisions of the Act. In the instant case the only dispute which was referred to the Arbitrator was whether or not the three debtors were liable to pay the amount claimed by the Co-operative Society, to it. The controversy whether or not the liability for the said amount rest with Shish Ram, was not referred to the Arbitrator. In the circumstances it was not within the domain either of the Arbitrator or of the Assistant Registrar to pass any effective, order against Shish Ram. We are accordingly of opinion that the appellate orders passed by the Assistant Registrar dated 31-9-1975 in Writ Petition Nos. 3643 and 3644 of 1976 and those dated 1-10-1975 in Writ Petitions No. 3645 and 3646 of 1976 in so far as they direct recovery of the amount from petitioner, Shish Ram, deserve to be quashed. 7. In the result these four petitions succeed and are allowed. The appellate orders of the Assistant Registrar dated 21-9-1975 involved in Writ Petition No. 3643 and Writ Petition No. 3644 of 1976 and those of date 1-10-1975 in Writ Petition No. 3645 of 1976 and Writ Petition No. 3646 of 1976, in so far as they direct recovery of various amounts from the petitioner Shish Ram are quashed. Parties to bear their own costs.