JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan. C.J. 1. The Petitioner-Society took out arbitration proceedings under Section 72 of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act') against the 3rd Respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,32,022-20 said to have been embazzied by him and interest thereon. The Arbitrator passed an award for a sum of Rs. 2,16,836 75. After the award was passed, Society entered into a settlement with the 3rd Respondent on his offer to pay a sum of Rs. 55,000 in cash and furnish sureties for the balance. On that settlement the Society withdrew the execution proceedings, which it had initiated pursuant to the award. That settlement was arrived at between the parties on 14 11-1981. As per the terms of the settlement, the 3rd Respondent was to pay a sum of Rs, 55,000 by 22nd November, 1981. For the balance, he would furnish two sureties who were prepared to mortgage their properties acceptable to the Petitioner and liquidate the loan amount within one year in case the 3rd Respondent failed to pay off the, loan. It was also agreed that in case the 3rd Respondent or his sureties paid off the balance amount of Rs. 79,511 25 within a period of six months, the Petitioner would not charge any interest on the said amount. If on the other hand, the amount was not paid within one, year in full, the Petitioner would charge interest at the rate of 17 1/2% per annum on the balance amount from 14-11-1981 and enforce the claim. 2. The deed of mortgage was executed by the 3rd Respondent as well as Respondents No. 4 to 7 who were the sureties on 30-1-1982. in the preambly, it was stated in the mortgage deed that in consideration of a " sum of Rs. 79,511.25, the mortgagors did admit, acknowledge and confirm the said amount and they thereby transferred, and mortgaged by way of simple mortgage in favour of the Petitioner herein all the properties specifically described in the Schedule annexed with the mortgage deed. It was also mentioned that items (i), (ii) and (iii) in the Schedule stood attached in favour of the Petitioner for a sum of Rs 2,32,022.20 which had been paid off and Rs. 79.511 26 remained to be paid. It was also mentioned that items (i), (ii) and (iii) in the Schedule stood attached in favour of the Petitioner for a sum of Rs 2,32,022.20 which had been paid off and Rs. 79.511 26 remained to be paid. The mortgage deed proceeded to say that it was agreed and declared by and between the parties that in case the amount was paid within a period of six months, the Petitioner would not charge any interest on the said amount and if the total amount was not paid within one year in full, the Petitioner would be charging interest at the rate of 17 1/2% per annum on the remanding w.e.f. 14-11-1981. The mortgage deed further stated that it shall be lawful for the mortgagee to enforce the mortgage and to cause the property or any portion sold and appropriate the proceeds to the satisfaction of the mortgagee provided further that in the event of any short fall or deficiency then not satisfied,, the mortgagee shall be entitled to recover the balance personally as against the mortgagors, who shall be entitled to redeem the said mortgage at their option by payment of the amount of mortgage debt inclusive of interest at any time before the date fixed. 3. As the terms of the mortgage were not fulfilled by Respondents No 3 to 7, the Petitioner initiated proceedings Section 72 of the Act before the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. The matter was referred for decision under Section 73(1)(b) of the Act The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who was exercising the powers of the Registrar under, Section 72 of the Act rejected the claim holding that as there was already an award passed in arbitration under the provisions of the Act, no further proceedings could be initiated by the Petitioner for a second time for passing an award. The Petitioner filed a revision before the Joint Registrar (Dairy), Co-operative Societies, Himachal Pradesh. The Joint Registrar while setting out the terms of the mortgage opined that the remedy of the Petitioner was to enforce the mortgage by other means and not to invoke the provisions of Section 72 of the Act. The Joint Registrar observed that in view of the above provision, the applicant-Bank shall approach the competent Court for satisfaction of its claim against the Respondent. The application of the Bank for the reasons is, therefore, hereby rejected" 4. The Joint Registrar observed that in view of the above provision, the applicant-Bank shall approach the competent Court for satisfaction of its claim against the Respondent. The application of the Bank for the reasons is, therefore, hereby rejected" 4. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has preferred this writ petition. The first question that is to be considered is whether the mortgage dated 30-4-1982 brings into existence a new contract between the parties after passing of the award in the arbitration proceedings held earlier. On a perusal of the mortgage deed, we have no doubt whatever that it is a case of novatro and thus a new contract has been brought into existence. Learned Counsel for the 3rd Respondent contends that the settlement between the parties would only amount to concession on the part of the Petitioner with regard to the amount due under the award already passed and in return for that concession, the mode of execution of the award was agreed to between the parties by the execution of the mortgage. According to learned Counsel for the 3rd Respondent, the only remedy of the Petitioner is to execute the award already passed and it cannot seek a fresh reference under Section 72 of the Act. 5. We are unable to accept this contention. As pointed out already, there is no doubt whatever that the mortgage had brought into existence a new contract between the parties. Section 62 of the Contract Act reads that if the parties to a contract agree to substitute a new contract for it, or to rescind or alter it, the original contract need not be performed In this case, an award was passed by the Arbitrator and certain amount was due under that award by the 3rd Respondent to the Petitioner. But the 3rd Respondent was not in a position to clear the award by making payment of the full amount. In that situation, a settlement was arrived at between the 3rd Respondent and the Petitioner. By that settlement, some new parties were brought into the fold and all of them agreed that the properties set out in the mortgage deed would charged for the amount due to the Petitioner under the award, provided some concession is shown to the 3rd Respondent with regard to the payment of the amount. Thus, after showing certain concession, the mortgage was entered into between the parties. Thus, after showing certain concession, the mortgage was entered into between the parties. As per the mortgage, the amount due was only Rs. 79,511.25 after the payment of Rs 55,000 already made by the 3rd Respondent. As pointed out already, there is a specific reference to the payment of Rs. 2 32,022.20, for which the claim was made in the earlier reference proceedings by the Petitioner and in Which the properties at items (i), (ii) and (iii) stood attached. Thus, by making a statement in the mortgage that the prior amount due had been paid off and what remained to be paid was only Rs. 79,511.25, it is very clear that the parties brought into existence a new contract. It should also be noticed that some more parties have been brought into the contractual relationship between the Petitioner and the 3rd Respondent. Thus, the persons, who have come as sureties were not parties to the contract between the Petitioner and the 3rd Respondent previously. They came on the scene only when the mortgage was executed on 30-4-1982. 6. Once, it is held that the mortgage had brought into existence a new contract, there can be no doubt whatever that the Petitioner is entitled to enforce this new contract and the Petitioner cannot enforce the old award. The award has ceased to be enforeable by virtue of new contract and the Petitioner is only seeking at present to enforce the new contract, as per the provisions of Section 62 of the Contract Act. 7. The next question which arises for consideration is whether the present reference is to enforce the new contract or the old award. A doubt arose because of the claim of the Petitioner for a sum of Rs. 1,47,428.26. It is argued by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that interest was payable on the sura of Rs. 79,311 25 from 14-11-1981, if there was a default on the part of the mortgagors to fulfil the terms of the contract and thus, a sum of Rs. 1,47,428.26 was arrived at. 1,47,428.26. It is argued by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that interest was payable on the sura of Rs. 79,311 25 from 14-11-1981, if there was a default on the part of the mortgagors to fulfil the terms of the contract and thus, a sum of Rs. 1,47,428.26 was arrived at. Even assuming that the said amount is not correct and some lesser amount is due to the Petitioner, it is a matter to be considered when the reference is decided under Section 72 of the Act If the amount claimed is more than what is due to the Petitioner, it is for the Arbitrator under Section 71 of the Act to pass an award for the appropriate amount, which might be found to be due to the Petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has categorically stated that what is sought to be enforced by the present reference is only the new contract and not the old award 8. It is next contended that there being no dispute, the matter cannot be referred to the Arbitrator under Section 72 of the Act and the remedy of the Petitioner if at all is to go before the Civil Court. Our attention is drawn to Section 2(7) of the Act, which defines a dispute as follows: 'Dispute' means any matter capable of being the subject of civil litigation and includes a claim in respect of any sum payable to or by a Co-operative Society whether such claim be admitted or not. 9. The expression 'dispute' finds a place in Section 72 of the Act. Applying the definition contained in Section 2(7), there is no doubt that even if the claim had been admitted by the persons concerned, the matter has to go before the Arbitrator under Section 72 of the Act for the purpose of passing an award. Sub-section (2) of Section 72 states that a claim by the Society for any debt of demand due to it from a member or any employee, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not shall be deemed to be a dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a Co-operative Society for the purpose of Sub-section (1). Thus, in Sub-section (2) of Section 72, it is again stated that even if the claim of debt is admitted by the persons concerned, it will be a dispute for the purpose of Sub-section (1). Thus, in Sub-section (2) of Section 72, it is again stated that even if the claim of debt is admitted by the persons concerned, it will be a dispute for the purpose of Sub-section (1). Consequently, the matter will certainly fall within the scope of Section 72 of the Act and it can be decided only under that section. 10. As the authorities below have taken the view that the claim is not for a fresh reference under Section 72 of the Act, the orders passed by the authorities are set aside and the matter is sent back to the file of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Bank) for disposal in accordance with law. He shall dispose of the matter as a reference under Section 72 of the Act and pass an appropriate award after giving due opportunity to the parties to place their respective cases before him. 11. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.