CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J. ( 1 ) IN these two Writ Petitions, the petitioner-Bank had challenged the common order dated 22. 6. 1999 in Appeal Nos. 211 to 217/98, 218 to 223/98 and 224 and 225/98 passed by the Karnataka ( 2 ) APPELLATE Tribunal in so far as the same retated to the order in appeal Nos. 224 and 225/98. In passing the said order in so far as the said two appeals are concerned, the Appellate Authority while allowing the appeals of the respondent No. 1, had remitted the disputes in question to the respondent No. 4-Assistant Registrar of co-operative Societies and further made certain observations as against the officials of the petitioner-Bank including the Secretary of the Bank. ( 3 ) IT is the argument of Sri Vishwajith Rai that the KAT in allowing the appeals filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 had set aside the award passed in favour of the petitioner-Bank and further more it had also made some observations as against the officials including the Secretary of the petitioner-Bank to the effect that they had committed serious irregularities in the matter of entertaining the member ship of the respondent No. 1. He had further submitted that the KAT placed a reliance on the SSLC marks card to decide for the first time that the respondent No. 1 was a minor at the time of his admission as member to the Society. He further submitted that the KAT had not properly appreciated the material evidence on record on the file of the Court below and that therefore it had entered into an error. According to him, the said procedure adopted by the appellate Authority was not at all justified. Therefore, he prayed that the instant Writ Petition be allowed. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 on the otherside submitted that the petitioner-Bank would not have made out a grouse as against the impugned order since it is borne on record on the non-party Arbitrator that when the matter was adjourned from 3. 4. 1997 to a future date 25. 7. 1997, the Arbitrator had disposed of the very dispute by allowing the dispute and further passing award on 31. 5. 1997 itself. 4. 1997 to a future date 25. 7. 1997, the Arbitrator had disposed of the very dispute by allowing the dispute and further passing award on 31. 5. 1997 itself. Though Sri Patil had supported the impugned order, he had placed an alternative argument to say that the matter be remitted to the original Authority for fresh disposal of the disputes. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 had also endorsed the argument of Sri Patil. ( 6 ) I have carefully gone through the impugned order under challenge. The Appellate Authority had discussed in detail the merit of the appeals in No. 224 and 225/98 filed by the respondent No. 1. It had observed therein that as on 17. 4. 1999, the respondent No. 1 was a student and was not having an agricultural land and further that he was a minor. That finding by the KAT was on the basis of the SSLC marks card wherein the date of birth of the respondent no. 1 stated to have been shown as 23. 7. 1977 and it is because of that, the KAT had held that the agreement entered into by the petitioner-Bank and the respondent No. 1 was illegal and as such it had come to the conclusion that the very dispute filed by the petitioner-Bank before the respondent No. 4 was not maintainable. It had further observed that the Secretary of the petitioner-Bank had not confirmed as to whether the respondent No. 1 was possessing any agricultural land by obtaining katna, pahani and RTC extracts from the jurisdictional departmental Sub Registrar before sanctioning the loan and therefore he had committed dereliction of his duties in advancing loan to the respondent No. 1 and in the penaltimate para of the impugned order, it had also given liberty to the petitioner-Bank to initiate proceedings under the Karnataka Co-operative societies Act and Rules for the acts of omissions and commissions stated to have committed by the officials including the Secretary, As i see, the KAT had passed serious remarks as against certain officials of the Bank in connection with the grant of loan mainly on the basis that the respondent No. 1 had placed his SSLC marks card to show that his date of birth was 23. 7. 1977 and as such he was a minor as on the date of loan on 17. 7. 1977 and as such he was a minor as on the date of loan on 17. 4. 1995. I do not think, it was proper for the KAT to decide that issue for the first time in appeal without there being any evidence on record as the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 had casually paced a SSLC marks card to show that the date of birth of the respondent No. 1 was 23. 7. 1977 without an opportunity being afforded to the otherside to counter the said position. It is to be observed here that the respondent No. 1 had not recourse to provision in Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Regulation for production of evidence in the appeal and despite that the KAT had decided the appeal as if the SSLC marks card as evidence in the appeal to support a new case made out for the first time at the time of advancing the argument. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, I am of the considered view that the KAT had ventured to decide the date of birth of the respondent No. 1 without there being any materials evidence on record. It also appears to me in the said circumstances that the KAT would not have passed serious observations ordering disparaging remarks as above as against the defenceless officials of the Bank to say that they committed various acts omission and commission in the matter of advancing the loan. One should not forget in such situations that such observations may mar the very career of the officials in co-operative Institutions which to one's common knowledge being led by factions of all hues with over-tone of politics, at times warring and vying against one another resulting in the poor officials being caught up in queer contrasts. ( 8 ) NOW I come to the merit part of the appeal. !t is not in dispute before me that when the disputes in No. 944 and 960/96-97 instituted by the petitioner-Bank before the non-party Arbitrator the matter was adjourned to a future date i. e. 25. 7. 1997 wherein he had passed the judgment and award on an earlier date on 31. 5. 1997 itself. It was also not in dispute before me that the respondent No. 1 had filed the application for loan. That, in fact, is the line of argument of his counsel, Sri Patil in opposing the instant Writ Petition. 7. 1997 wherein he had passed the judgment and award on an earlier date on 31. 5. 1997 itself. It was also not in dispute before me that the respondent No. 1 had filed the application for loan. That, in fact, is the line of argument of his counsel, Sri Patil in opposing the instant Writ Petition. If is true that both the disputes before the Arbitrator was adjourned from 3. 7. 1997 to 25. 7. 1997; there was no good reason tor the non-party arbitrator to advance the dispute to 31. 5. 1997 to allow the same to the disadvantage of the contesting respondents ( 9 ) THAT being so, I am of the considered view that the KAT would have as well remitted the matter to the respondent No. 4-Assistant registrar of Co-operative Societies for fresh enquiry and to pass considered order in the said disputes raised by the petitioner-Bank. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: order 1. The impugned order dated 22. 6. 1999 in so far as the same related to the Appeals in No. 224 and 225/98 granting liberty to the petitioner-Bank to initiate the proceedings as against the officials of the petitioner-Bank under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act and Rules, is quashed. ( 10 ) THE Disputes No. 944 and 960/96-97 stand remitted to the respondent No. 4-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies for fresh enquiry and further to dispose of the said disputes in consonance with law, that this Court does in modification of the impugned order passed by the KAT. ( 11 ) IT is also added here that all the contentions of the parties before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies are kept open and further any of the observations herein made or for that matter by the KAT in the impugned order will not come on the way of the parties to prosecute their respective side of the case before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies or before the non-party Arbitrator if he i. e. Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies chooses to refer the same to him. Both the Writ Petitions therefore stand allowed in part in the above terms. No cost. Both the Writ Petitions therefore stand allowed in part in the above terms. No cost. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of the order herein passed to the Registrar, KAT for circulation of the same among the chairman and its Members, for this Court had come across the above situation in entertaining the documents during the course of the argument and deciding the appeals, as if they were the evidence on record, for the second time, within a course of three months or so. The KAT should take note that by that it is not only prejudicing the parties before it, besides it is also causing unnecessary litigation before this Court as well as before it, if the matters were to be remitted by this Court in setting aside the orders passed by it. --- *** --- .