Jyotirmay Bhattacharya ( 1 ) THIS application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging inter alia the propriety of the order dated 20th February, 2003 passed by the learned Co-operative Tribunal, West Bengal in Appeal No. 11 of 2003. ( 2 ) BY the order impugned the petitioner's application for issuance of direction upon the respondents to show cause as to why the nominee of the appellant, viz. , Smt. Babuli Ghosh should not be admitted as a member of the society and further as to why a deed of conveyance should not be executed forthwith so as to facilitate enjoyment of the exemption from payment of the enhanced stampduty was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal by holding, inter alia, that the said application is a misconceived one. The Appellate Tribunal held that if such a prayer is allowed at an interim stage, nothing will be left in the appeal to be adjudicated upon therein. ( 3 ) THE instant revisional application has been filed against such an order passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal. ( 4 ) LET me give hereunder the background of this proceeding, in short. ( 5 ) THE petitioner is the original member of the respondent society in respect of a fiat being flat No. F-2/3 Labony Estate, Salt lake, Sector-1, Kolkata-700 064 under Bidhan Nagar North Police Station. In spite of payment of the entire cost of the said flat, title in respect of the said flat has not yet been conveyed in favour of the petitioner. ( 6 ) THE said flat was transferred by the petitioner to Babuli Ghosh with the knowledge of the co-operative society and all the papers relating to the transfer were deposited with the society in 1997 but no receipt was granted by the society by acknowledging the receipt of such papers. ( 7 ) THE opposite party society does not conduct the business in a conducive manner and in accordance with law. The said society failed to effect such transfer of membership in favour of the said Babuli Ghosh as per the rules and byelaws of the society. ( 8 ) A serious allegation against the society has also been made by the petitioner for extortion of Rs. The said society failed to effect such transfer of membership in favour of the said Babuli Ghosh as per the rules and byelaws of the society. ( 8 ) A serious allegation against the society has also been made by the petitioner for extortion of Rs. 15,000/- from the petitioner by way of donation as a consideration for processing the prayer for transfer of the said flat by the petitioner in favour of Smt. Babuli Ghosh. ( 9 ) BEING aggrieved by such illegal action on the part of the said opposite party, the petitioner referred the said dispute to the learned Arbitrator under section 95 of the said Act for determination of such a dispute. The said reference was registered as 14/rcs/2002. ( 10 ) THUS, a complaint regarding malpractices, extortions and oppression on the minority members as well as non-compliance of the statutory provision including commission of criminal offence in the nature of breach of trust was made against the opposite party herein in the said reference. ( 11 ) IN the said proceeding the petitioner prayed for issuance of direction upon the concerned authority not only for transfer of the said flat by executing a deed of conveyance in favour of Babuii Ghosh but also for recovery of the money which was extorted by the opposite party from the petitioner in the garb of donation. ( 12 ) AFTER a contested hearing, the said proceeding was concluded by an award passed by the learned Arbitrator on 26th November, 2002 whereby the opposite party was directed to forward the set of papers regarding transfer of membership which were submitted by Sri H. P. Bhattacharjee and were received by Sri bimal Das on behalf of the Society on 8th June, 2002 to the appropriate authority, viz. , Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society, C. M. A. H. within ten days from the date of communication of the award provided the proposed transferee, viz. , babuli Ghosh satisfies all the criteria regarding eligibility for becoming a member of the society under the law. ( 13 ) SINCE the relief for recovery of the extorted money was not granted by the learned Arbitrator, the petitioner preferred an appeal challenging the said part of the award by which the petitioner's prayer for recovery of the extorted money was refused by the learned Arbitrator before the Appellate Tribunal. ( 13 ) SINCE the relief for recovery of the extorted money was not granted by the learned Arbitrator, the petitioner preferred an appeal challenging the said part of the award by which the petitioner's prayer for recovery of the extorted money was refused by the learned Arbitrator before the Appellate Tribunal. The said appeal was registered as Appeal No. 11 of 2003. ( 14 ) IN connection with the said appeal, an application was filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal, inter alia, praying for issuance of a direction upon the opposite party to show cause as to why the nominee, viz. , smt. Babuli Ghosh should not be admitted as a member of the said society and further as to why a deed of re-conveyance should not be executed forthwith, so as to facilitate enjoyment of the exemption from payment of the stamp-duty. An ad interim prayer in similar term was also prayed for by the petitioner in the said application in the view of the fact that unless the deed of conveyance is executed and registered within a particular date, the petitioner will not be able to enjoy exemption regarding payment of higher stamp-duties in view of the amended provision of the extant Act. ( 15 ) THUS, for avoiding payment of higher stamp-duties, the petitioner filed the said application with such a prayer, as indicated above. ( 16 ) THE learned Appellate Tribunal by its order being No. 4 dated 20th february, 2003 was pleased to reject the petitioner's said application by holding inter alia that the application is a misconceived one and the appeal will be non est if such a direction is given by the Tribunal on the respondent at this stage of this appeal. ( 17 ) THE propriety of the said order is under challenge in this application by the appellant/petitioner herein. ( 18 ) MR. Sadhan Roy Chowdhury, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that when the rights of the parties regarding transfer of the flat in favour of the said Babuli Ghosh has been concluded by the award, the learned Tribunal ought not to have rejected the petitioner's said application in view of the change in the provision regarding payment of stamp-duties for such conveyance which was brought into operation by way of amendment of the extant statute during the pendency of this appeal. ( 19 ) BY relying upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of suryadev Rai vs. Ramchandra Rai, reported in AIR 2003 SC 3044 , Mr. Roy chowdhury submitted that when the rights of the parties regarding transfer in favour of Babuli Ghosh has been concluded in the award, this Court sitting in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, can pass appropriate order directing the opposite parties to conclude the said transaction without relegating the parties to the long drawn proceeding which is prescribed under the Act for execution of the award. ( 20 ) MR. Roy Chowdhury further submitted that where a stitch in time would save nine, this Court can pass appropriate order for completing the said transaction by transferring the said flat in favour of Babuli Ghosh so that the liability for payment of higher stamp-duties could have been avoided by execution of the said deed before the stipulated date. ( 21 ) ACCORDINGLY, Mr. Roy Chowdhury invited this Court to intervene in this matter and to pass an appropriate order so that the transaction can be completed at an early date in terms of the award. ( 22 ) MR. Chatterjee, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the opposite party, supported the impugned order by submitting that the relief which was prayed for by the petitioner in the said application was not in consonance with the award. By referring to the prayer contained in the said petition Mr. Chatterjee submitted that the petitioner prayed for something more which was not even given to him in the award. ( 23 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Chatterjee that if such a relief as prayed for, is allowed, nothing will remain in the appeal to be adjudicated upon. Furthermore if the relief as prayed for in the said application is to be allowed, then the appellate authority will have to give some more reliefs in excess of the reliefs which were prayed for by the petitioner in the original proceeding itself. ( 24 ) ACCORDINGLY, Mr. Chatterjee opposed this application and prayed for rejection of the same. ( 25 ) HEARD the learned Advocates of the parties. Consider the materials on record. ( 26 ) ADMITTEDLY, a part of the relief as claimed by the petitioner was granted by the learned Arbitrator in the award. ( 24 ) ACCORDINGLY, Mr. Chatterjee opposed this application and prayed for rejection of the same. ( 25 ) HEARD the learned Advocates of the parties. Consider the materials on record. ( 26 ) ADMITTEDLY, a part of the relief as claimed by the petitioner was granted by the learned Arbitrator in the award. The part of the relief which was not granted by the learned Arbitrator in the said proceeding has already been indicated above. The appeal was admittedly directed against the part of the relief which was not granted by the learned Arbitrator to the petitioner in the said award. The said part really relates to refusal to pass an award against the opposite party for refund of the money which was extorted from the petitioner by the opposite party by way of donation. ( 27 ) THUS, the scope of appeal is very limited. This Court cannot be unmindful of the power which the appellate authority enjoys under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of the provision under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Tribunal can also pass any order which ought to have been passed or made as the case may require notwithstanding the fact that the appeal is as to a part of the award only and the opposite party has not challenged the said part of the award by which the right of the opposite parties was affected, by way of cross-objection. ( 28 ) THUS, the power of the Appellate Tribunal to consider the merits of the disputes as a whole is not restricted even though no cross-objection has been filed by the opposite party against the part of the award which is operating against the said opposite party. ( 29 ) THAT apart, even assuming that the rights of the parties regarding transfer has been concluded by the award still then in case of non-compliance of the said part of the award by the opposite parties, the remedy which is available to the petitioner, is to enforce the said award by way of execution of the said award under Rule 179 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 1987 before the Civil Court having local jurisdiction in the same manner as if it were a decree of such Court. ( 30 ) THUS, in case of execution of such an award before the Civil Court, the opposite party can even raise objection regarding the executability of the said award and/or the satisfaction and discharge thereof in the said execution proceeding. ( 31 ) ALLOWING such a relief by the Appellate Tribunal would amount to curtailment of the opposite party's right to challenge the said award as to its executability, discharge or satisfaction of the said award before the appropriate forum. ( 32 ) THAT apart, the Appellate Tribunal is not the executing authority. As such the award cannot be executed in the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal. ( 33 ) BYPASSING of the forum regarding execution of the award under the said act has a far-reaching effect as that would amount to curtailment of the opposite party's right to challenge the executability of the said award as provided under section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code in connection with the execution proceeding. ( 34 ) IN the facts and circumstances as above this Court finds no illegality and/or jurisdictional error in the order impugned which is required to be rectified by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The power and/or jurisdiction of this Court to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of india is very limited as has been pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suryadev Rai vs. Ramchandra Rai (supra) wherein the Hon'ble supreme Court held that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate Courts or Tribunals within the bounds of their jurisdictions. ( 35 ) THUS, when the subordinate Court or Tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law or failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, then the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. If the said principle is applied in the instant case then it will appear that the jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be invoked in this case as the Appellate tribunal did not move beyond its bound to pass the impugned order. If the said principle is applied in the instant case then it will appear that the jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be invoked in this case as the Appellate tribunal did not move beyond its bound to pass the impugned order. Rather the Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass the order as prayed for by encroaching upon the jurisdiction of the Executing Court. ( 36 ) IN such view of the matter this Court does not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the order impugned. As such, this Court declines to interfere with the order impugned. ( 37 ) THE revisional application is thus rejected. ( 38 ) THE application for modification of the interim order filed by the opposite party being CAN No. 4114 of 2005 thus stands disposed of accordingly. ( 39 ) THERE will be, however, no order as to costs. ( 40 ) THE learned Appellate Tribunal is directed to dispose of the said appeal as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of the communication of this order. ( 41 ) URGENT xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, as expeditiously as possible. Revisional application rejected.