Judgment :- Petitioners in this petition have sought for quashing the order dated 12th January, 2007 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bangalore in Appeal No. 588 of 1999 vide Annexure-E. 2. The deceased Sri M.G. Jagadish represented by his legal representatives in this petition as respondents 3 to 5 herein had filed the Appeal No. 588 of 1999 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bangalore along with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay and assailed the order passed by first respondent dated 27th July, 1999 passed on application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in Dispute No. D.D.S./D.2/1106/1997-98 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bangalore. The said appeal had come up for consideration before the Appellate Tribunal on 12th January, 2007 and the Tribunal, after hearing both parties and after considering the material available on records, following the judgment of the Apex Court and this Court, has allowed the appeal filed by respondents 3 to 5 and set aside the order passed by the first respondent and condoned the delay in filing the dispute before the first respondent. Thereafter, the first respondent was directed to dispose of the appeal on merits, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to the petitioners herein and respondents 3 to 5. Aggrieved by the order impugned passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bangalore, dated 12th January, 2007 passed in Appeal No. 588 of 1999, petitioners herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition, seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated supra. 3. I have heard Sri H. Srinivasa Rao, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and learned Counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5-Sri Pradeep Nayak along with his other colleagues. 4. 3. I have heard Sri H. Srinivasa Rao, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and learned Counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5-Sri Pradeep Nayak along with his other colleagues. 4. After careful perusal of the order impugned, it is apparent on the face of the said order that, there is no error or material irregularity as such committed by the Appellate Tribunal in allowing the appeal filed by deceased M.G. Jagadish represented by his legal representatives-respondents 3 to 5 and condoning the delay in filing the dispute before the first respondent inasmuch as the said exercise has been done by assigning valid and cogent reasons for condoning the delay in filing and after following the judgment of this Court and the Apex Court as referred at paragraphs 17 and 18 of the order, after considering all the specific grounds taken by the petitioners before the Tribunal. The petitioners have raised the specific ground that as per Section 119 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, it is applicable to only filing of any appeal or application for revision under this Act and not for the original dispute and since the respondents had shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay of one year and eleven months, has allowed the appeal filed by respondents and set aside the order passed by first respondent and condoned the delay in filing the dispute before the first respondent. It is pertinent to note that, the Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the entire material available on record threadbare and placing reliance of the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramesh Govind Kulkarni and Others v Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore and Others 1995(5) Kar. L.J. 202 when it is held that, even if an appeal is ex facie found to be barred by limitation, no formal application necessary for condonation of delay -if separate application need, reasonable opportunity to be given to appellant for filing the same. L.J. 202 when it is held that, even if an appeal is ex facie found to be barred by limitation, no formal application necessary for condonation of delay -if separate application need, reasonable opportunity to be given to appellant for filing the same. Therefore, the Tribunal has opined that, in the instant case of appellants-respondents 3 to 5, there was no delay in filing the dispute before the first respondent and even if there was any delay, as raised by petitioners of one year and eleven months, it is due to filing the dispute first before the wrong forum and also due to bona fide belief that, the dispute is within time and therefore, the appellants-respondents 3 to 5 have not filed the delay condonation application along with main dispute before the first respondent. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal was of the view that, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, the appellant-respondents 3 to 5 herein have shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Therefore, I am of the view that, the Appellate Tribunal, after being satisfied that sufficient cause is shown for condoning the delay, has considered the relevant material available on record and after affording sufficient opportunity to the Counsel who represented the parties, has recorded the finding of fact on the basis of the material available on file. Therefore, interference by this Court, exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not at all justifiable in view of the well-settled law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in host of judgments, nor I find any justification or good grounds to entertain the relief sought for by petitioners. Hence, I decline to entertain the prayer sought for by petitioners for the reason that, this Court never entertains the writ petition against the remand orders except in rarest to rare cases only when it is found that, there is mala fide or fraud committed. Now, since the matter is pending adjudication before the first respondent for consideration on merits, it is open for the petitioners and respondents 3 to 5 to substantiate their respective grievance before the first respondent. Therefore, interference by this Court is uncalled for. 5. Now, since the matter is pending adjudication before the first respondent for consideration on merits, it is open for the petitioners and respondents 3 to 5 to substantiate their respective grievance before the first respondent. Therefore, interference by this Court is uncalled for. 5. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated supra, the writ petition filed by petitioners is disposed of with a direction to first respondent to dispose of the dispute pending adjudication before the said authority in respect of petitioners and respondents 3 to 5 as expeditiously as possible, in any event, not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.