ORDER Mehtab S. Gill, J. - In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/277 of the Constitution of India, the prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of impugned order dated 1.12.1999, Annexure P3. 2. It has been averred by the petitioner that Shri Chander Shekhar son of Shri Brij Mohan, respondent No. 3 was appointed as a Cashier in Rajpur Bhain Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. Rajpur Bhain, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to as the Society). Respondent No. 3 Shri Balwant Singh stood surety for him to compensate the Society for any loss or embezzlement done by Shri Chander Shekhar. Shri Balwant Singh executed surety bond on 22.4.1983 and pledged 13 Kanals 16 Marlas of land in village Hukran, bearing Khewat No. 54, Khatauni No. 81-82, Khasra Nos. 29/23/5-7, 22/1/3-11 and 29/18/4-18. A copy of the surety bond has been attached as Annexure P1. 3. It has been further averred that during service. Shri Chander Shekhar embezzled an amount of Rs. 4,80,776/-. An arbitration reference was made against him and respondent No. 3-Shri Balwant Singh, surety. The attachment of land of respondent No. 3 was made under Section 65 of the Punjab Co- operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). A copy of attachment order is attached as Annexure P2. The order passed under Section 65 of the Act was appealable under Section 68 of the Act. However, no appeal was filed by respondent No. 3 but a petition under Section 3(4) of the Act was filed before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh. The Registrar, vide his order dated 1.12.1999 ordered that respondent No. 3 is liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- only for the loss caused to the Society by Shri Chander Shekhar. In other words, order dated 28.2.1995 for the attachment of the land of the petitioner was set aside. This order has been attached as Annexure P3. It is this order which is under challenge and which the petitioner terms as illegal. The petitioner further alleges that incompetent petition was filed under Section 3(4) of the Act. It has been further averred that the Registrar has misinterpreted surety bond to mean that respondent No. 3 was liable only to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- and that the surety bond is in two parts. The petitioner further alleges that incompetent petition was filed under Section 3(4) of the Act. It has been further averred that the Registrar has misinterpreted surety bond to mean that respondent No. 3 was liable only to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- and that the surety bond is in two parts. The first part clearly shows that in case respondent No. 4 had misappropriated or embezzled the amount, then respondent No. 3 would be responsible in all respects. 4. Notice of motion was issued. 5. I have heard arguments on behalf of the petitioner and the respondents. 6. Mr. M.S. Kang, counsel for respondent No. 3 has vehemently argued that the surety bond clearly shows that if Shri Chander Shekhar was found to be not performing his duties properly and caused any loss to the Society, then respondent No. 3-Balwant Singh can be only held liable to the amount of Rs. 10,000/-. On the other hand, the counsel for the petitioner has argued that the surety bond is in two parts. One part says that in case respondent No. 4, Shri Chander Shekhar commits any embezzlement of the amount being received by him from any Bank or Union or the Society which may cause financial loss to the Society, then respondent No. 3-Balwant Singh is liable in all respects and the second part is that in case Shri Chander Shekhar causes any loss to the Bank or the Society, then the surety is liable for Rs. 10,000/-. 7. I have got the surety bond translated from Punjabi into English from the Translation Branch of the High Court. The first part of the surety bond is reproduced hereunder : "In case, he commits any embezzlement of the amount being received by him from any Bank or Union or the Society, Organisation or account holders during the period of his posting as such, which may cause financial loss to them on account of the mishandling on his part, I shall be responsible in all respects." 8. From the above first part of the surety bond, it is clear that the words written are that if Shri Chander Shekhar commits any embezzlement of the amount being received by him and further if he causes any financial loss to the Society, respondent No. 3-Shri Balwant Singh shall be responsible in all respects. 9. From the above first part of the surety bond, it is clear that the words written are that if Shri Chander Shekhar commits any embezzlement of the amount being received by him and further if he causes any financial loss to the Society, respondent No. 3-Shri Balwant Singh shall be responsible in all respects. 9. The second portion of the surety bond is reproduced as under : "In case Shri Chander Shekhar Bhardwaj is found to be delinquent in the performance of his duties and causes any loss to the Bank, I hold myself responsible to pay the security or administrative only to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) out of my property." 10. The second portion is only to the extent that if the loss is caused to the Bank monetarily then he is responsible to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. It has been also stated therein that for rest of the loss, Shri Chander Shekhar shall himself be responsible. 11. The awards which were passed against respondent No. 4-Shri Chander Shekhar though not attached with the petition have gone unchallenged and as on today have become final. The petition filed before the Registrar cannot be taken as an appeal or revision filed before the appropriate authority as envisaged under Section 68 or Section 69 of the Act. Going through Annexure P3, petition filed before the Registrar, it is clear that there is no mention of the awards passed against the respondent. Annexure P2, which is an attachment order of the land of respondent No. 3, has been passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Hoshiarpur exercising the powers of Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab. This order is dated 28.2.1995. Order dated 1.12.1999, Annexure P3, which is under challenge was passed on 1.12.1999 by the Registrar, though his powers have already been exercised by the Assistant Registrar under order, Annexure P2. 12. The counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Kot Shamir Co-operative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 P&H 107 : 2000(2) PLJ 48, in which it has been held as under : "From the conjunctive reading of the above provisions, it is evident that the order dated 8.5.1995 confirming the sale had been passed by the Deputy Registrar by exercising the powers of the Registrar under Section 63 of the Act. The said order, therefore, would be deemed to have been passed by the Registrar and as such no revision against such an order could be filed before the Registrar........". 13. From the above quoted portion, it is clear that the Registrar cannot revise the order of an authority which has passed the same as a Registrar. Even if we take Annexure P3 as a revision, the Registrar could not pass this order again exercising the powers of Registrar. 14. With the above observations, the impugned order, Annexure P3, is quashed. The petitioner-Society is well within its right to proceed against respondents No. 3 and 4, as per law. 15. This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. Petition allowed.