1. In this revision petition order dated 24.12.2004 passed by Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies Jammu has been assailed on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The order has been sought to be set aside also on some grounds to which reference will be made if necessary, at appropriate stage. 2. This petition was ripe for arguments as on 23.5.2007 but since then the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent started remaining absent and when they used to be in attendance adjournment on different grounds were sought and ultimately the counsel for the respondent started remaining absent, whereupon he was placed ex-parte and Ld. Counsel for the petitioner was heard. 3. Reiterating the grounds of revision petition the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the J&K Cooperative Societies Act 1989 it is only the Registrar Cooperative Societies who is competent to hear the appeal. According to him in 1992 SRO 306 was issued by the Government, according to which Additional Registrar is not competent to hear any case relating to Central Coop. Bank and as such judgement passed by him is non est in the eyes of law. 4. On the merit of the case, it has been submitted that one time settlement scheme of 2003 is not applicable to the case of the respondent but still the Additional Registrar has directed the petitioner to consider his case for one time settlement. 5. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the Learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record minutely. 6. After going through the Cooperative Societies Act 1989 (here-in-after the Act) drastic changes have been made in the matter pertaining to the appeals. As per Section 158 Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies is competent to hear the appeal against the order, decision or award made by the Deputy Registrar. The Registrar is competent to hear such appeal against the orders etc. passed by Additional Registrar. 7. As per SRO supra copy of which is annexed with the revision petition, the Government has appointed Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies to assist the Registrar and powers of Registrar have been conferred on the Additional Registrar except in respect of items mentioned in the sub joined schedule which include the Central Cooperative Banks. As such it is held that Additional Registrar had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. 8. As such it is held that Additional Registrar had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. 8. So far the facts of this case are concerned, the appeal was filed by the respondent before the Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies Jammu against the order of recovery of bank loan. It is mentioned in the appeal that Central Cooperative Bank started recovery proceeding about the loan amount which the respondent had obtained from the said bank. In the light of SRO No:306, Additional Registrar had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. 9. The judgment of Additional Registrar even on merit is liable to be set aside. As per his judgment he had sought the information from the Central Cooperative Bank as to whether the case of respondent Baldev Raj of waiving of loan is covered under one time settlement scheme as per Circular No:SLD/84-91/8569 dated 28.7.2003, to which the Central Cooperative Bank made a submission that the case of the respondent was not covered under the said scheme. On this information the Additional Registrar held that the case of the respondent Baldev Raj does not fall under the above scheme. 10. Despite giving the findings that the case of respondent is not covered under the said scheme, the Addl. Registrar disposed of the appeal with a direction to the petitioner-bank to consider the case of the respondent under the abovesaid scheme as a special case, which direction he was not competent to pass. 11. Viewed thus, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside as being without jurisdiction. 12. Record of the court below be sent back and file be consigned to record after due compilation.