JUDGMENT Mishra --1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Second Appeal Nos. 224/08 (Vindhya Nagar Grah Ninnan Sahakari Sarniti Mydt., Bhopal v. Rajrup Patel), 225/2008 (Vindhya Nagar Grah Ninnan Sahakari Sarniti Mydt., Bhopal v. J.P. Patel), 226/2008 (VindhyaNagarGrah Ninnan Sahakari Samiti Mydt., Bhopal v. Ram Naresh Patel), 04/2009 (Vmdhya Nagar Grah Ninnan Sahakari Samiti Mydt., Bhopal v. Ram Raj Singh Patel) and 05/ 2009 (Vindhya Nagar Grah Ninnan Sahakari Samiti Mydt., Bhopal v. Rarnakant Patel). 2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 3.11.2008 passed in Case No. (M)-21/2008-2009 by the Dy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Bhopal, the appellant has preferred this second appeal. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are such that appellant is a Primary Housing Cooperative Society registered U/S 9 of the Act. Respondent was a Member, who has been expelled. Initially, respondent approached District Consumer Redressal Forum with the request that either he be allotted a plot by the appellant society or the share money deposited by him should be refunded back with the interest. The District Consumer Redressal Forum, Bhopal vide its order dated 12.1.2006 directed the appellant society to refund the money accepted from the respondent. The respondent further approached the State Consumer Forum by filing an appeal No. 432/06 vide which order dated 1.7.2006 he was allowed 9% per annum interest from, 1.4.1999 till the date of payment. The appellant society deposited the amount vide D.D. No. 000066 dated 6.2.2006 in Central Cooperative Bank, Bhopal, as directed. Since, the money invested by the Respondent was refunded by appellant depositing it in Central Cooperative Bank, as per direction of the Consumer Court, the Managing Committee of the appellant society vide its resolution dated 19.3.2006 resolved to discontinue the membership of the respondent and informed him accordingly on 13.11.2006. Respondent filed an appeal u/ s 19-C before the Dy. Registrar Cooperative Societies, Bhopal, who vide the impugned order has held that the order of the appellant society was illegal and has accordingly set it aside. Dy. Registrar through his impugned order has held that since procedure laid down U/S 19-C was not followed, the membership of the respondent was continued. 3. Initially following two substantial points of law were formulated for consideration : (i) Whether the respondent would continue as a member inspite of membership fee having been refunded to him? (ii) Whether the dispute filed before the Dy. Registrar was time barred? 3. Initially following two substantial points of law were formulated for consideration : (i) Whether the respondent would continue as a member inspite of membership fee having been refunded to him? (ii) Whether the dispute filed before the Dy. Registrar was time barred? Hearing both the parties, later on following one more substantial question was formulated: (iii) Whether the dispute filed before the Dy. Registrar Cooperative Societies u/s 19-C (1-A) can be termed to be the First Appeal? Point No. (i) 4. Learned counsel arguing for the appellant society submitted that the appellant society has deposited the amount as directed by the Consumer Redressal Forum, in accordance with the relief sought by the respondent before it. There is no share money left with it. Therefore, the question of continuation of membership of the respondent in the appellant society does not arise. Counsel for the respondent pointed out that the respondent has not actually received the money and since the money has not come into his hands the cessation of his membership cannot be the conclusion and the order of the Dy. Registrar that way is correct. Provision of section 21 of the Act is relevant in this context which is reproduced here as under : "21. No rights of membership to be exercised till due payments are made -- No. member shall exercise the rights of a member unless he has made such payment to the society in respect of membership or acquired such interest in the society as may be prescribed or as may be specified in the byelaws of such society." It is obvious that share money is necessary for a member to be enrolled as member in the society. This provision is also clear about the powers to be exercised by a member when so enrolled in a society. It is clear in this manner as argued by the counsel for the appellant that this provision is just not applicable for the enrolment of a member but is also important from the point of view for continuation of his membership. It was an option of the respondent to withdraw his money deposited in the Bank once he had approached Consumer Redressal Forum for the refund of it. It was an option of the respondent to withdraw his money deposited in the Bank once he had approached Consumer Redressal Forum for the refund of it. If he has not taken this money from the Bank it does not entitle him for his continuation in the society as the Society has already refunded it by depositing it in the Bank, as per orders of the Consumer Redressal Forum. Counsel for the respondent was required to furnish evidence, if there is at least minimum one share money available in the Appellant society deposited by him, but the same was not produced and no proof was furnished to conclude that even a minimum one share is retained by the respondent in the appellant society. It is worthwhile to consider whether the action U/S 19-C was the course available for the appellant society in the present matter. As a matter of fact section 19-C deals with the expulsion of a member on grounds mentioned in it. Naturally since the grounds of intentionally injuring the credit of the society or willfully deceiving the society or carrying on any business parallel to the society was not the case the Dy. Registrar in his wisdom had held that there was no grounds for taking action u/s 19-C. As we have stated earlier, this course was at all not open for the appellant society as the respondent had already lost the right for exercising his rights of membership since his share money was refunded and the action of expelling the members by passing resolution or the Board or Annual General Meeting was not called for. It is worthwhile to compare this situation with a corresponding provision available in section 23 of Madhya Pradesh Swayata Sahakari Adhiniyam, 1999. This is about the cessation of membership automatically when a member becomes disqualified in any manner. In any case the simple point which has been formulated for consideration was about the continuation of membership inspite of the share money having been refunded. The decision is clear that the membership cannot be continued without the share money deposited in the applicant society. Point No. (ii) 5. The counsel of the appellant submitted that the case before the Dy. Registrar U/S 19-C was filed two years after the order of the society expelling the respondent from its membership. The decision is clear that the membership cannot be continued without the share money deposited in the applicant society. Point No. (ii) 5. The counsel of the appellant submitted that the case before the Dy. Registrar U/S 19-C was filed two years after the order of the society expelling the respondent from its membership. According to him, in sub-section (I-A) of section 19-C, 30 days is the limit of filing an appeal before the Dy. Registrar from the date of communication of resolution. The committee of the appellant society had resolved it on 19.3.2006 and communication the decision on 13.11.2006, where as the dispute was filed before the Dy. Registrar on 20.8.2008. The Deputy Registrar has concluded that the period of limitation should be counted from the date of the communication of the decision of the Society. According to him the resolution was communicated in August, 2008 only. We do not find any merit in going deeper into. This issue as it no longer has any bearing in the case in light of the issue No.1 settled as earlier. Point No. (iii) 6. The counsel for the respondent came up with a novel argument that although the Tribunal has so far treated such orders of the Lower Court in matters of section 19-C (I-A) to be a First Appeal, the Tribunal deserves to consider the matter afresh as the same cannot be treated to be a Second Appeal at the level of the Tribunal. According to him in accordance with the provision of section 78 (2), Second Appeal would lie before the Tribunal against any order passed in First Appeal by the Registrar only. He further argued that the only exception in the Act is in respect of section 58-B, where the First Appeal can lie before the Tribunal, even when the order has been passed by the Dy. Registrar or Assistant Registrar. According to the learned counsel, however, the Tribunal has so far held that the appeals filed against an order even passed by a Dy. Registrar u/s 19-C (1-A) has to be treated as Second Appeal, but the view deserves to be modified as the same has not been so far confirmed by any order of the Hon'ble High Court as well. Registrar u/s 19-C (1-A) has to be treated as Second Appeal, but the view deserves to be modified as the same has not been so far confirmed by any order of the Hon'ble High Court as well. The counsel for the appellant on the other hand suggested that under Subsection 1-A of 19-C, a person aggrieved by the Resolution of the Committee under sub-section (1) may, "appeal" before the Registrar. It thus amounts to be a matter of First appeal against which Tribunal can hear only a Second Appeal u/s 78 (2). M.P. Cooperative Societies Act does no where define the word, "appeal". It has even not been defined in Code of Criminal Procedure or Code of Civil Procedure as well. According to Law Lexicon (Shri T.P. Mukherjee Central Law Agency page 164), "An appeal in legal parlance is held to mean the removal of a cause from an inferior or subordinate to a superior Tribunals or Forums in order to test and scrutnize the correction of the impugned decision." Over a period of time, however, it has acquired a definite connotation and meaning which can be summarized as under : "A proceeding undertaken to have a decision reconsidered by bringing it to a higher authority, especially the submission of a lower Court's decision to a higher Court for review and possible reversal. An appeal, strictly so called, is one in which the question is, whether the order of the Court from which the appeal is brought was right on the material which the Court had before it. An appeal is removal of the cause from an inferior to one of superior jurisdiction for the purposes of obtaining a review or retrial. An appeal, generally speaking, is a rehearing by a superior Court on both law and fact." Broadly speaking, therefore, an appeal is a proceeding taken to rectify an erroneous decision of a Court by submitted the question to a higher Court. State of Gujarat v. Salimbhai Abdulgaffar Shaikh and others, (2003) 8 SCC 50 . (Reference Supreme Court - on words and Phrases 1950-2008. Justice R.P. Sethi, Ashok Law House, Second Edition, page No.1 04). It is clear from the above view held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cited judgment that the consideration of a matter in an appeal obviously involves two Courts, one Lower and one Higher. (Reference Supreme Court - on words and Phrases 1950-2008. Justice R.P. Sethi, Ashok Law House, Second Edition, page No.1 04). It is clear from the above view held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cited judgment that the consideration of a matter in an appeal obviously involves two Courts, one Lower and one Higher. The resolution against which the matter U/S 19-C (I-A) was preferred was against the resolution of the committee of the appellant society. If this resolution can be taken to be a decision of a Court only in that situation the matter referred to the Dy. Registrar can be treated to be a matter of First Appeal. It is pertinent to note that these resolutions of a committee of a society can just not be taken to be the decision ofa Court as the committee of the society also takes decision in service and administrative business matters. It is as if by way of an exception that an Act provides an appeal in respect of admission as well as expulsion from membership in section 19 and section 19-C of the Act. According to sub-section (6) of section 19, an aggrieved person for not admitting him as member in society may appeal" to the Registrar within 90 days from the date of rejection. Similarly, according to sub-section (1-A) of section 19-C "Any person aggrieved by the resolution of the Committee under sub-section (1) may 'appeal' before the Registrar within 30 days of the communication of such resolution." 7. The pertinent question for us to consider is this that whether the word, "Appeal" used at these two places has the same connotation which it has in section 78 of the Act? There is one more occasion of being aggrieved by the order of the resolution of a Committee in case of an employee who after having aggrieved can file a service dispute u/s 55 (2). It is also worth mentioning here that in a number of Service Rules framed by the Registrar Co-operative Societies u/s 55 (1) pertaining to various Co-operative Societies, an aggrieved employee goes in appeal before the Chairman or the Board in case where the order against him in a disciplinary proceeding has been passed by a subordinate authority. It is also worth mentioning here that in a number of Service Rules framed by the Registrar Co-operative Societies u/s 55 (1) pertaining to various Co-operative Societies, an aggrieved employee goes in appeal before the Chairman or the Board in case where the order against him in a disciplinary proceeding has been passed by a subordinate authority. But even in a Service Dispute where an order has been passed by an appellate authority of Cooperative Society, the course available for an employee is that of a dispute U/S 55 (2) only. We therefore consider it proper to treat the course of appeal provided in section 19 and 19-C to be a matter of dispute' and a primary matter as the same has got to be decided by framing issues and recording evidence for the finalization of it. If such an order has been passed by Assistant Registrar or Dy. Registrar, the course of First Appeal available to the aggrieved, according to the scheme of the Act U/S 78 (1) would be the Registrar or the Joint Registrar, as the case may be. Only a Second Appeal U/S 78 (2) against such order should in the circumstances lie before the Tribunal. A fitting parallel may well be drawn with the provisions of M.P. Swayatta Sahakari Adhiniyam, 1999 (for short, 'the Adhiniyam, 1999') in this respect. The Adhiniyam, 1999 in sub-section (10) of section 4, in sub-section (7) of section 5 and in sub-section (7) of section 8 of context of the registration, conversion and amendment of Byelaws respectively provides the aggrieved party for approaching Co-operative Tribunal for 'redressal'. Approaching the Registrar similarly in section 19 or 19 (c) by the aggrieved in accordance with the provisions of Act of 1960 is seeking 'redressal' in the logical sequence of the Act against the decision of a Board or a Committee. We have following reasoning to record and to deviate from the earlier view taken by the Tribunal in this respect : (i) Earlier view was taken by the erstwhile Presiding Chairman, but since the Tribunal now consists of a Division Bench, the earlier view of a Single Presiding Officer can be revised. (ii) The Resolution of a Committee or a Board of Co-operative Society cannot be held to be an order of a subordinate Court. (iii) Dy. (ii) The Resolution of a Committee or a Board of Co-operative Society cannot be held to be an order of a subordinate Court. (iii) Dy. Registrar or the Assistant Registrar deciding a matter under subsection of section 19 or 19-C (I-A) are definitely subordinate to the Registrar or the Joint Registrar, therefore, the First Appeal against their orders should lie before them only. (iv) Since the service dispute U/S 55 (2) is entertained against the resolution of Board, a matter U/S 19-C (I-A) and 19 (4) should also be challenged as a primary matter before the Registrar. (v) Section 78 in Chapter X of the Act is a distinct part of the Act exclusively dealing with first or second appeal. The second appeal under section 78 (2) can be heard under this provision only. 8. In the light of above discussions, we hold that as challenged by the learned counsel of the respondent, there is no case of considering this matter as Second Appeal by the Tribunal. However, as we have held earlier there was no case of any action U/S 19-C by the appellant society and likewise there should not have been an appeal considered U/S 19-C (I-A) by the Dy Registrar. The matter is so analyzed just to firmly hold that there is no case of remanding the matter to the Dy Registrar for considering it as a dispute afresh either. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent had also raised point that the appellant society had discriminated with the respondent. There were few more other cases in which the appellant had refunded the share money, but such members have not been expelled, whereas the respondent has been expelled from the membership as the appellant society has a grudge against him. 10. We have very clearly held earlier that according to section 21 of the Act, a Member wishing to exercise and retain powers as a member of society must have minimum share holding of it. In cases where share money has been refunded to the respondent or deposited in their name in the Bank as per direction of the Court such person does not have any right to continue as member as he cannot exercise his right for want of minimum share holding on his part. 11. In cases where share money has been refunded to the respondent or deposited in their name in the Bank as per direction of the Court such person does not have any right to continue as member as he cannot exercise his right for want of minimum share holding on his part. 11. In the light of above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Dy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Bhopal on 3.11.2008 set-aside. Parties to bear their own costs. Result be noted. C.C. as per rules.