B. A. KHAN ( 1 ) ALL these petitions ariee out of a common order passed by R-1 disposing of revisions filed by R-3 in these petitions dated 28. 8. 1998 and are being dealt with by this common order. ( 2 ) R-3 in all these petitions were members of the petitioner society. They allegedly defaulted in paying the society s dues and consequently expulsion proceedings were initiated against them under Rule 36 of delhi Cooperative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as DCS Rules ). They were given requisite notices and were ultimately expelled from the primary membership of the society vide Resolution of the General Body. Their case along with 25 others was sent to Registrar for approval of their expulsion. The Registrar is said to have put them on notice and even public notice to which they allegedly failed to respond. Ha than passed an interim order dated 8. 12. 1987 approving their expulsion and carried on the proceedings in other cases. These respondents filed revision petitions against this before r-1 pleading non-receipt of notices and challenged registrar s action on some other grounds. R-1 (financial Commissioner), on consideration of the matter, held:- "i have carefully considered the submissions of both the parties and have also gone through the impugned order. After going through the impugned order, I find that appellants remained absent before the Registrar cooperative Societies despite notice and publication in the newspapers. During the arguments, however, it has become clear that the appellants have already made substantial payments to the society and are also willing to make the rest of the payment if some reasonable time is given. It has also come out as a fact during the arguments that surprisingly the registrar Cooperative Societies has approved the enrollment of three members despite stay by this court. This may have to be separately looked into. " "hence in view of the substantial payments already made by the petitioners, petitioners are given one final opportunity to pay the entire dues along with the upto date interest to the society. The society will supply the statement of outstanding dues against the appellants within 10 days of the order of this court and thereafter the appellants shall square up all the dues along with upto date interest within 30 days, failing which the expulsion shall stand confirmed. All these four petitions are disposed of with these observations. The society will supply the statement of outstanding dues against the appellants within 10 days of the order of this court and thereafter the appellants shall square up all the dues along with upto date interest within 30 days, failing which the expulsion shall stand confirmed. All these four petitions are disposed of with these observations. ( 3 ) PETITIONER Society justifies the Registrar s order which it says was passed after due notice to these respondents and in conformity with requirements of Rule 36 of DCS Rules. It also asserts that R-1 had out-stepped his jurisdiction by asking respondents to pay the balance amount for allotment of flats within 10 days without determining the legality or propriety of registrar s order. It is submitted that Section 80 of dcs Act only empowered him to test the legality and propriety of Registrar s order and nothing more and that he could not go beyond this to condone or rectify the default, of defaulting members and to afford them a chance or option to make up such default. ( 4 ) PRIVATE respondents have challenged the very maintainability of this petition and have charged the society of expelling members by devious means and for extraneous considerations. It is disputed by them that they had received any notice from the Registrar or that any opportunity of hearing was granted to them by the general Body/managing Committee or for that matter by the Registrar before their expulsion. They also maintain that the Society had accepted the balance payments from them pursuant to R-1 s order and that it was now estopped from challenging his order. ( 5 ) PETITIONER has filed a rejoinder which is a reiteration of the stand taken by it in the petition. However, it has not denied receipt of balance payments from the answering respondents. ( 6 ) WE would have examined the issue whether R-1 had exceeded his jurisdiction by allowing further time to private respondents to make good the default, but we find that petitioner Society had happily implemented the impugned order by accepting balance payment from these respondents. It had challenged the order in this petition after about 8 months and perhaps on a second thought. The other aspect which raises a little concern is that Registrar had passed an interim order dated 18. 12. It had challenged the order in this petition after about 8 months and perhaps on a second thought. The other aspect which raises a little concern is that Registrar had passed an interim order dated 18. 12. 1997 to expel these respondents and had allowed the proceedings to continue in case of others. It is not understandable why he should have picked up these respondents for expulsion by an interim order instead of taking the proceedings to a logical end. This also assumes importance in the light of Financial commissioner s observation that some new members were enrolled in contravention of his orders. ( 7 ) THE financial Commissioner has done no better. He has returned self-contradictory findings holding on one hand that private respondents had remained absent despite notice and on the other hand granting them final opportunity of 10 days to make good the default to avert their expulsion. ( 8 ) ALL this had persuaded us to remand the matter to financial Commissioner on merits on first brush, but on noticing that petitioner society had implemented his order, we feel that it would now be futile to do so. We are, therefore, constrained to maintain the impugned order in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the spirit of let bygones be bygonee. However, we may add a note of caution here only to indicate that grant of further time to defaulting members either by the registrar or the Revisional Authority may not sustain in all events and circumstances. The Revisional Authority is first required to test the legality and propriety of the order under review and then to annul, modify or revise it. Its jurisdiction ie not unlimited so as to authorise it to pass any order it likes de hors the subject matter of the order under review. The review power is exercisable with certain inherent limitations and is not meant to be used to side-track the order under review or to embark on a new course resulting in passing of new orders or directions which would fall beyond the scope of order under review. Petitions are dismissed with these observations.