JUDGEMENT 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 8.05.2006 passed in Case No. 78-68/03 by the Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Jabalpur, the appellant has preferred this second appeal. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant is District Central Co-operative Bank registered u/s. 9 of the Act. The respondents are the legal heirs of late Shri Kuwar Lal Patel, who was the Manager of Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Antari from 1976 to 1978 affiliated to the appellant Bank. The respondent had allegedly misappropriated an amount to the extent of Rs. 38,073.18/- for which he had not been held responsible and was terminated from service on 1.12.1983. The criminal proceedings against the respondent were also initiated and he was charge sheeted under section 468,471,420, 408 of IPC. The Sessions Judge Balaghat through, his order dated 27.1.2000 and 20.09.1999 acquitted the respondent. The respondent thereupon approached the appellant Bank for taking back him in service. He even approached Hon'ble High Court, Jabalpur. However, High Court in its order dated 13.12.2001 directed the appellant Bank to take the decision in the matter of the respondent within six months. The Board of the appellant Bank on 6.5.2002 dismissed the application of the respondent. On 3.10.2002 the respondent filed a dispute u/s 64 before the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Balaghat urging that since he had been acquitted in the criminal case his services be restored. Deputy Registrar in his order dated 8.9.2003 set aside the order of the termination of the respondent dated 1.12.1983 on the ground that as the respondent was acquitted by the Criminal Court his termination order could not stand. Therefore, he was reinstated in service with back-wages. Appellant Bank preferred First Appeal before Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Jabalpur, who dismissed this appeal in default on 8.5.2006. Appellant Bank further approached Hon'ble High Court against the order of the Joint Registrar, in which Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 17.10.2006 observed that the Appeal or Revision may be preferred before the appropriate Court. Therefore, this Second Appeal. 3. This appeal was admitted on following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether the Court of Deputy Registrar had inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute of the appellant Bank in view of Notification No.F-5-1-1999-XV-1-B dated 26-7-1999? ii) Whether the appeal could have been dismissed in default? iii) Whether the dispute was barred by limitation? 4. Therefore, this Second Appeal. 3. This appeal was admitted on following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether the Court of Deputy Registrar had inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute of the appellant Bank in view of Notification No.F-5-1-1999-XV-1-B dated 26-7-1999? ii) Whether the appeal could have been dismissed in default? iii) Whether the dispute was barred by limitation? 4. Learned counsel Shri Sanjay Bajpai appearing for the appellant Bank submitted that in light of the Notification of Government of Madhya Pradesh dated 26.7.1999, the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Balaghat does not have jurisdiction to decide the case in which appellant Bank is a party. Thus, according to the learned counsel since the order passed by the Deputy Registrar is without jurisdiction, it deserves to be set aside by this Tribunal. 5. Among all the above three substantial questions of law, the first question is quite material as it goes to the root of the matter. Therefore, we are confining ourselves to the decision pf this point only. It is apparent that the dispute u/s 64 has been filed before Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Balaghat on 3-10-2002 and the same has been registered as 8/ 2002. The proceedings were accordingly initiated after listing the case on 7 -10-2002 and accordingly notices were issued to the concerned parties. 6. After the formation of District of Government of Madhya Pradesh, first Notification relating to the delegation of powers of officers at all levels by Co-operative Department was issued vide Government Notification No. F-5-1-1999-XV-1-B dated 26.7.1999. According to this Notification, the Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Jabalpur like all other Joint Registrar was delegated with following powers: (1) (2) (3) (4) 4. Joint Registrar Co- 1. Section 18-A 1.Jabalpur operative Societies 2. All powers in Jabalpur2.Katni respect of: 3.Chhindwara (a) Financing Bank 4.Seoni (b) All Societies 5.Mandha whose area of operation 6.Narisinghpur extends beyond the 7.Dindori limits of a district but 8.Balaghat does not exted in whole of the State. 7. As regards Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Balaghat according to the first schedule of this Notification, the powers of the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Balaghat were confined to all powers of the Registrar in respect of all types of Societies in case of a matter u/s 64 confined to District Balaghat only. 7. As regards Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Balaghat according to the first schedule of this Notification, the powers of the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Balaghat were confined to all powers of the Registrar in respect of all types of Societies in case of a matter u/s 64 confined to District Balaghat only. Thus, according to this Scheme of this Notification, the case pertaining to a Bank could not be entertained and adjudicated by the Deputy Registrar as it was in the sole discretion of the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jabalpur only. 8. It is admittedly an objection raised at a very later stage, but the settled principle of law in this respect is obvious. The point challenging the jurisdiction can be raised at any stage including the stage of execution. 9. Counsel for the respondent in his arguments raised the point of limitation holding that the Second Appeal is barred by it. According to him the appeal before the Tribunal has been filed as late as on 29.12.2006 whereas the impugned order of the Deputy Registrar is passed on 20-52006. The counsel that way submitted that the appeal can be dismissed on this very ground of limitation. 10. It is an admitted position that the appellant had first filed Writ petition before Hon'ble High Court, which was registered as 987912006 in which High Court in its order dated 17-10-2006 had directed the appellant to file proper appeal or Revision before the competent Court. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the order of the High Court was made available to the appellant Bank on 23-11-2006 and accordingly on 19-12-2006, second appeal has been filed before the Tribunal. The objection of the counsel for the respondent is this that the appellant has even filed an application for the condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit for it. We are placing basically our reliance on Kiran Singh and others vs. Chaman Pawan and others, AIR 1954 SC 340 , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, 'Decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and where ever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. "The question of limitation, therefore, need not be discussed any further. 11. "The question of limitation, therefore, need not be discussed any further. 11. As recorded earlier other questions not being necessary in above light of discussons, we briefly hold that since the order passed by the Deputy Registrar was without jurisdiction, the Respondents are at liberty to avail the dispute filed by him before the Deputy Registrar for its presentation before proper Court now. 12. Resultantly the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 8.5.2006 passed in Case. No. 78-68/03 by the Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Jabalpur, is set aside. Parties to bear their own costs.