D. P. S. CHAUHAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior dated 14th May, 1987 (Annexure P-4 to the petition) passed in Second Appeal No. 77-1 / 86, which was filed against the order of the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhopal dated 8. 10. 1986 passed in appeal No, 77-16/83 as well as the order dated 6. 10. 1987 (Annexure P-6) to the petition) passed on the application of the petitioners is Restoration Case No. 10-11 / 87 with the prayer for quashing the same. ( 2 ) CAUSE list revised. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners Shri Abhay Sapre and the learned Counsel for the Respondents Shri K. N. Agrawal. ( 3 ) THERE was a dispute between the petitioners i. e. M. P. State Co-operative Marketing Federation and M/s. Bagadia Brothers, Raipur and for resolution of the dispute M/s. Bagadia Brothers under Section 64 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) referred the dispute to the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Raipur for arbitration. The same was registered as Case No. 114/74-75. The Dy. Registrar vide his Judgment and order dated 18. 2. 1983 dismissed the claim of the respondent No. 2 with the direction for returning an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent No. 2. The petitioners did not file any appeal, but this order was challenged by the respondent No. 2 by means of an appeal, which was numbered as Appeal No. 77-15/83. ( 4 ) THE appellate Authority vide order dated 8. 10. 1986 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Dy. Registrar, Co-operative Societies for deciding question after taking evidence as to under which authority the goods were despatched and in whose account the same was sent or it was sent by the Co-operative Society in its own account. This order of remand dated 8. 10. 1986 passed in first appeal by the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies was challenged before the Board of Revenue by the respondent No. 2 by means of second appeal, which was numbered as Second Appeal No. 79/1/86. This order of remand was passed ex parte as is stated in paragraph 4 of the order of Board of Revenue dated 14/5/1987. 10. 1986 passed in first appeal by the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies was challenged before the Board of Revenue by the respondent No. 2 by means of second appeal, which was numbered as Second Appeal No. 79/1/86. This order of remand was passed ex parte as is stated in paragraph 4 of the order of Board of Revenue dated 14/5/1987. The petitioners moved for recalling the said ex parte order, but the application was rejected on the ground firstly the application was beyond 30 days, secondly it was not accompanied by any application for condonation of delay and the ex parte proceedings were valid and thirdly no provision was shown for recalling of the order. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the second appeal has been decided by the Board of Revenue treating the same as the first appeal as the Board of Revenue entered into the question on merit instead of considering the legality of the order of remand, and as such the order of Board of Revenue was invalid. Secondly, Board of Revenue has erred in law in dismissing the restoration application of the petitioners, ( 6 ) IN support of the first submission, learned Counsel invited the attention of the Court to sub-section (2) of Section 77 of the Act and submitted that the second appeal is competent only on 3 ground, firstly, if the order is contrary to law. secondly, if the order has failed to determine some material issue of law; and thirdly, if there has been a substantial error or defect in the procedure as prescribed by this Act which may have produced error or defect in the decision of the case upon merits. He further submitted that the scope of the authority of the Board of Revenue was circumscribed by the said provision. The Board of Revenue has not held that the order of the remand was contrary to law, nor the Board of Revenue has held that the appellate authority failed to determine some material issue of law and in the order of remand the appellate authority failed to determine some material issue of law and further the order of remand was not found to have a substantial error or defect in the procedure as prescribed by this Act which may have produced error or defect in the decision of the case upon merits. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents relied on a decision of this Court in Misc. Petition No. 3822 of 1987 M. P, State Co-operative Marketing Federation, Bhopal and another v. Board of Revenue and another, dated 13. 1. 1998 and submitted that in view of this, this writ petition deserves to be rejected. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that present case is distinguished and not governed by the said decision as relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondents as in the present case the first appellate authority i. e. Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies remanded the matter back to the first authority Le. the Arbitrator and this remand order was given challenge by the respondents by means of second appeal and in the second appeal, the appellate authority instead of confining itself within the scope of order of remand inter into the merit of the claim and decreed the entire claim. The submission so advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners has got substance. There is a distinction and on account of this distinction, the question which has cropped up for consideration is regarding the jurisdiction of the second appellate authority i. e. the Board of Revenue. ( 8 ) THE submission so advanced by the learned Counsel has got substance and in view of the revision of sub-section (2) of Section 77 of the Act, the Board of Revenue while exercising the power of the State Government as second appellate forum, was not supposed to interfere unless the requirements of sub-section (2) of Section 77 of the Act were satisfied. In the present case, the requirements of sub-section (2) of Section 77 of the Act are not satisfied. The order of Board of Revenue thus is laconic as well as without jurisdiction and authority of law. It deserved to be set aside. ( 9 ) SINCE the order of Board of Revenue is found to be erroneous, it is not necessary to dilate on the second submission as advanced by the learned Counsel. ( 10 ) THE writ petition deserves to be allowed in part. It is accordingly partly allowed. The impugned order dated 14th May, 1987 passed by the Board of Revenue in Second Appeal No. 79-1/86 (Annexure P-4 to the petition) is set aside and the order of the first appellate authority le. Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies dated 8. ( 10 ) THE writ petition deserves to be allowed in part. It is accordingly partly allowed. The impugned order dated 14th May, 1987 passed by the Board of Revenue in Second Appeal No. 79-1/86 (Annexure P-4 to the petition) is set aside and the order of the first appellate authority le. Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies dated 8. 10,1986 is maintained and the proceedings consequent upon remand shall resume. Since the order of Board of Revenue is set aside, it is not necessary to set aside the order passed on the application of the petitioners in Registration Case No, 10-11 / 87 (Annexure p-6 to the petition ). In the circumstances of the case no order as to costs. Security amount, deposited if any, may be refunded. Petition Partly allowed. .