JDUGMENT - D.G. DESHPANDE, J.:---Heard Mr. K.S. Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Nobody is present for the respondents. 2.The facts giving rise to this petition are that the No. 1 filed a dispute against the present petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for recovering certain amount before Co-operative Court, Nashik. In that dispute the present petitioner appeared and filed an application raising preliminary objection regarding limitation. After hearing the present petitioner and the disputant society i.e. respondent No. 1 the Co-operative Court upheld the objection of limitation and dismissed the dispute so far as present petitioner was concerned. Respondent No. 1 society filed an appeal before Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court against the said order and since the appeal was allowed by the Appellate Court by its order dated 6th August, 1984 the present petition has been filed. 3.It was urged by Mr. Patil for the petitioner that the dispute, that was filed by respondent No. 1 was for an amount of Rs. fifty thousand and odd arising out of certain transactions between the disputants/respondents and the petitioner. He contended that the petitioner was not the member of respondent No. 1 Society but was a different entity. He pointed out that in such situation sub-section (2) of section 92 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 becomes applicable so far as period of limitation is concerned and since admittedly the dispute was on the basis and on the strength of accounts. Article 1 of the Schedule of Limitation Act, 1963 was attracted in the present case. According to him, the dispute should have been filed within three years of closing of the year in which the last item was admitted or proved or entered in the account. 4.From the copy of the dispute which he tendered during his arguments he pointed out that the last entry in the account book was dated 25-11-1969 and even if the end of the accounting year i.e. 31-3-1970 is taken into consideration filing of the dispute by respondent No. 1 on 28-4-1975 was barred by limitation. 5.The Counsel for the petitioner Mr. 5.The Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Patil drew my attention to the order of the Co-operative Appellate Court at Exhibit-B of the petition wherein while considering the point of limitation the Co-operative Appellate Court has held that sub-section (1) of section 92 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was applicable in the instant case as respondent No. 2 was the agent of the present petitioner. The exact findings of the Co-operative Appellate Court are as under :--- "The dispute before the Court will fall under this provision [i.e. section 92(1)] as its relates to any sum including interest due to Society against the society as an agent through and against the person who acted for and on behalf of the agent i.e. the Secretary thereof who is respondent No. 2 herein." 6.These observations of the Co-operative Appellate Court are prima facie incorrect and against the provisions of section 92 of the Act. The petitioner society is not the member of respondent No. 1 society, therefore, sub-section (1)(a) of section 92 does not apply. Similarly, the dispute is not between the society and its committee or past committee or past or present officer etc. and consequently sub-section (1)(b) of section 92 also does not apply. Thirdly, the dispute was not in respect of any matter touching the constitution of the society i.e. the present petitioner society, therefore sub-section (1)(c) of section 92 does not apply and it was not in respect of election, therefore, sub-section (1)(d) of section 92 would also not apply. 7.The dispute between the present petitioner and respondent No. 1 which was the dispute before the Co-operative Court clearly falls under sub-section (2) of section 92 of the Act and the period of limitation would be accordings to the period prescribed by the Limitation Act. Since Article 1 of the Limitation Act is attracted, as rightly argued by Mr. Patil, respondent No. 1 should have filed the dispute at any time before completion of three years from the expiry of the accounting year 1968-69. However, admittedly, this dispute was filed in April, 1975 and it is clearly barred by limitation. The findings of the Co-operative Appellate Court are, therefore, wrong in so far as they affect the dispute between the present petitioner and respondent No. 1 and consequently the impugned order of the Co-operative Appellate Court is required to be set aside. Hence, the order. The findings of the Co-operative Appellate Court are, therefore, wrong in so far as they affect the dispute between the present petitioner and respondent No. 1 and consequently the impugned order of the Co-operative Appellate Court is required to be set aside. Hence, the order. ORDER Petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. The impugned order of the Co-operative Appellate Court dated 6th August, 1984 so far as it relates to continuation of dispute as against the present petitioner and which was filed by the disputant respondent No. 1 is set aside. No order as to costs. Petition is allowed.