KUMAR RAJARATNAM, J. ( 1 ) LEARNED high court government pleader takes notice for r-1, issue rule. the writ petitions are taken up with the consent of parties. ( 2 ) THE petitioners are the president and vice-president of the third respondent society. The petitioners were elected at a meeting on 3. 4. 1998. the minutes of the meeting was confirmed by the managing committee on 19. 5. 1998. On 9. 6. 1998 the second respondent filed an election petition. There was also a prayer for an interim order restraining the petitioners from functioning as president and vice-president. By an order dated 9. 6. 1998 at Annexure 'd' the first respondent restrained the petitioners from functioning as president and vice-president. ( 3 ) THE first respondent passed the following interim order :"the resolution dated 3. 4. 1998 of the defendant No. 1 bank in which the defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 3 were elected as the president and vice-president of defendant No. 1 bank respectively is stayed. further it is ordered that the defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 3 are restrained from functioning as president and vice-president of defendant No. 1 bank till next date of hearing. " ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by this, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions. Many contentions were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the second respondent. ( 5 ) THE first contention of Mr. Jayakumar s. Patil on which there appears to be some substance is with respect to non-compliance of Section 70-a of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the act) with regard to the period of limitation. ( 6 ) SECTION 70-a of the act reads as follows :"70-A. Period of limitation. (1) no dispute under Section 70 shall be entertained unless it is referred to the registrar with six years from the date of the cause of action : provided that a dispute relating to the election of a member, president, vice-president, managing director, honorary secretary or other offier of the committee shall be referred to the registrar within thirty days from the date of declaration of the result of the election. (2) notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) the registrar may entertain a dispute referred after the period specified in sub-section (1) if he is satisfied that the person making the reference had sufficient cause for not making the reference within that period. " ( 7 ) WHEN a petition is entertain with regard to a challenge to the post of president, vice-president, managing director, honorary secretary or other officer of the committee, the dispute will have to be raised within thirty days from the date of declaration of the result of the election as contemplated under the proviso to Section 70-a of the act it is equally permissible for the registrar to entertain a dispute beyond time, from a person making the reference provided sufficient cause is shown as contemplated under Section 70-a (2) of the act. ( 8 ) IN this case admittedly the election results were announced on 3. 4. 1998 and the dispute was raised on 9. 6. 1998. The last date for raising the dispute would have been on 3. 5. 1998. Obviously there is a delay of about 37 days. There has been no application made before the first respondent for condonation of this delay. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners also relied on an unreported judgment of this court in W. P. No. 2021/1996 dated 1. 12. 1996. This court in the said judgment took the view that it would not be advisable to pass any interim order with respect to election of office-bearers when the dispute is pending. ( 10 ) MR. Seshachala, learned counsel for the second respondent raised two contentions. One is that a revision is available against the interim order passed at Annexure 'd'. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the second respondent is that there is a power for the registrar to pass an interim order pending dispute. He relied on Section 71 (3) of the Act, which reads as follows :"the registrar or any other person to whom a dispute is referred for decision under this Section may, pending the decision of the dispute, make such interlocutory orders as he may deem necessary in the interest of justice. He relied on Section 71 (3) of the Act, which reads as follows :"the registrar or any other person to whom a dispute is referred for decision under this Section may, pending the decision of the dispute, make such interlocutory orders as he may deem necessary in the interest of justice. " ( 11 ) AS far as the first contention is concerned that a revision is maintainable against Annexure 'd' it cannot be denied that the petitioner could have approached the court by way of revision. However, when there is a clear violation of the statute and that when the application for interim order is beyond the last date, it was always open for this court to set right the error that is apparent on the face of the record. ( 12 ) AS far as the second contention of the learned counsel for the second respondent is concerned that the interim order is maintainable. There can be no dispute that the interim order is maintainable. All that this court pointing out is that a petition filed before the joint registrar is barred by limitation and is not maintainable unless the delay is condoned as required under Section 70-a (2) of the act. In this case admittedly there is a delay of nearly thirty seven days. When an election petition has been filed beyond the period of limitation this court will have no hesitation in interfering with the interim order passed in the election petition since unless the delay is condoned, the petition itself is liable to be dismissed. ( 13 ) IN that view of the matter Annexure 'd' passed by the first respondent stands quashed. The matter is remitted back to the first respondent for fresh disposal in accordance with law both with regard to the interlocutory application and with regard to the dispute, after an application is made for condonation of delay in accordance with the Provisions of section 70-a of the act if the second respondent is inclined to pursue the matter it will be open to him to file an application for condonation of delay. If such an application is made, the first respondent shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders. ( 14 ) IF the dispute is ultimately taken up the first respondent shall dispose of the dispute as expeditiously as possible. If such an application is made, the first respondent shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders. ( 14 ) IF the dispute is ultimately taken up the first respondent shall dispose of the dispute as expeditiously as possible. ( 15 ) THE petitioners and the second respondent shall appear before the first respondent with a copy of this order within one week from 22nd June of 1998. On such appearance, the first respondent shall take up the matter and dispose of the dispute and the interlocutory application in accordance with law. ( 16 ) THE writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Learned hcgp is permitted to file his memo of appearance within two books from today. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .