D. P. S. CHAUHAN, J. ( 1 ) BY means of this petition, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking relief of quashing the order dated 15. 9. 1982 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Board of Revenue in Second Appeal No. 37-11/82 and for issuance of direction to the respondent No. 3 for determining the dispute on merits. ( 2 ) THE petitioner i. e. The Balaghat Co-operative Housing Society, balaghat, Limited (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-society) is a body corporate registered under the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The Society remained under supersession during the period from 24. 2. 1971 to 26. 11. 1973 under section 53 of the Act and was in the charge of one Shri G. P. Shrivastava, who was appointed to manage the affairs of the Society. After the period of supersession was over and fresh committee of management was elected, then, it was discovered that Thakurdas Agarwal, (respondent No. 5) had taken loan from the Society which was not paid by him. Accordingly, an application was moved under Section 64 of the Act for arbitration, before the Deputy Registrar. Co-operative Societies Jabalpur. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies jabalpur rejected the application as being barred by time, vide order dated 28. 10. 1977 and this order of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, jabalpur was challenged by the society before the Joint Registrar. Co-operative societies, Jabalpur. The Joint Registrar allowed the appeal vide order dated 24. 11. 1981 and set aside the order of the Deputy Registrar Co-operative societies and restored the application of the petitioner for arbitration. Against this order, the respondent No. 4 Suprasanna Kelkar filed the second appeal before the Board of Revenue, Suprasanna (respondent No. 4), is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, was Secretary of the Society. The second appeal was allowed vide order dated 15. 9. 1982 and the order of the Deputy registrar Co-operative Societies was restored. Now, the order of the Board of revenue and the order of the Deputy Registrar, Co- operative Society are subject-matter of challenge in this petition. ( 3 ) CAUSE list revised. Counsel for the respondent not present. Counsel for the petitioner present. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Now, the order of the Board of revenue and the order of the Deputy Registrar, Co- operative Society are subject-matter of challenge in this petition. ( 3 ) CAUSE list revised. Counsel for the respondent not present. Counsel for the petitioner present. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner made two fold submissions : (1) For resolution of dispute under Section 64 of the Act, the limitation, is provided under Section 65 of the Act, and since the dispute relates to the recovery of an amount of loan including the interest thereon, due to the society, it was covered by clause (a) and as such, the Board of Revenue as well as Deputy Registrar, Co-operative societies have erred in law in dismissing the claim of the petitioner-Society arbitrarily as barred by time, (2) Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 65 of the Act was attracted to the presented mentioned in sub-sections (1) and (2) and as such they delay, if any, ought to have been condoned as the society cannot be made to suffer for the inaction of the official of the Government who was appointed to manage the affairs of the society by virtue of the order of supersession passed under section 53 of the Act. ( 5 ) SO far as the first submission is concerned, it is relevant to extract the provision of Section 65 (l) (a) of the Act :"65. Limitation. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the indian Limitation Act, 1908 (IX of 1908), and subject to the specific provisions made in this Act, the period of limitation for referring the disputes mentioned below to the Registrar under Section 64 shall (a) when the dispute relates to the recovery of any sum including interest thereon due to a society by a member thereof, be six years from the date on which such member dies or ceased to be a member of the society. "it is apparently a dispute relating to the recovery of any sum including interest thereon due to a society and the limitation as provided in clause (a) is six years for resolution of dispute, from the date on which such member dies on ceased to be a member of the society. "it is apparently a dispute relating to the recovery of any sum including interest thereon due to a society and the limitation as provided in clause (a) is six years for resolution of dispute, from the date on which such member dies on ceased to be a member of the society. In the present case, an incorrect view has been taken that the dispute relates to clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 65 of the Act. In the present case, the, person against whom the recovery is sought, had not died and had not ceased to be a members of the society and, therefore, there is no question of expiry of the limitation. ( 6 ) SO far as the second aspect relating to the condonation of delay is concerned, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even than he moved an application for condonation of delay which fact is admitted in the return (in para 6 of the return) filed on behalf of the respondent No. 6. ( 7 ) SO far as the respondent No. 6 is concerned, he has nothing to do in the matter of the recovery of dues as the claim of the society is against the respondent No. 5 Thakurdas Agarwal. Thakurdas Agarwal has not filed any return as is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the matter pertains to clause (b) of Section 65 (1) of the Act, even then, for a negligent act of the person appointed by the Registrar under Section 53 of the Act, the society cannot be made to suffer. ( 9 ) THE argument has got substance. It would come within the meaning of sufficient cause. ( 10 ) IN view of the above, the writ petition deserves to succeed. It is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 15. 9. 1982 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Board of Revenue and the order of the Deputy Registrar Co-operative societies, Jabalpur, dated 28. 10. 1977 (Annexure P-3) to the petition) are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Registrar of co-operative Societies Jabalpur for deciding the dispute on merits. Since no body has appeared to oppose the petition, it is not a case where any costs can be awarded and as such, no orders as to cost. 10. 1977 (Annexure P-3) to the petition) are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Registrar of co-operative Societies Jabalpur for deciding the dispute on merits. Since no body has appeared to oppose the petition, it is not a case where any costs can be awarded and as such, no orders as to cost. Security amount deposited, if any, may be refunded. Petition allowed. .