Judgment :- 1. In this case, the short question falls for determination is ‘whether the Joint Registrar is competent to entertain a miscellaneous application under Rule 34(1)(b) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 (for short ‘the Rules’) to set aside an ex-parte decision or award after thirty (30) days from the date of such decision or award was made when such decision or award had been duly served in the dispute or in other cases after thirty (30) days from the date of knowledge of such decision or award having been made?.’ 2. A few facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as under: The petitioner had filed a dispute in case No.JRB.MD.12/2001-2002 against the 1st respondent before the second respondent under Section 70 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act’) for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,89,820/-. The second respondent passed an award dated 21.2.2003 directing the first respondent to pay a sum of Rs.7,89,820/- with interest at 18% per annum from 22.6.1990 till the date of payment. The first respondent did not pay the said amount in terms of the award. Therefore, the petitioner filed an execution case No.758/2008 on the file of the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, for execution of the award. Notice in the case was served on the first respondent on 28.11.2008. On 16.2.2009, the first respondent filed a miscellaneous case under Rule 31(4)(b) to set aside the award dated 21.2.2003. He has also filed an application along with the miscellaneous case under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay in filing the miscellaneous case. The petitioner has opposed the application by filing objections. The second respondent has allowed the application by his order at Annexure ‘J’ Dated 1.6.2009. The petitioner filed a revision petition No.61/2009 under Section 107 of the Act before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, challenging the said order. The Appellate Tribunal has rejected the application by its order at Annexure ‘K’ dated 19.2.2010. The petitioner has called in question the validity of the said order in this case. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent was placed ex-parte in the award proceedings before the second respondent. The award was passed on 21.2.2003. In the Execution Case No.758/2008, the petitioner was served with a notice on 28.11.2008. The petitioner has called in question the validity of the said order in this case. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent was placed ex-parte in the award proceedings before the second respondent. The award was passed on 21.2.2003. In the Execution Case No.758/2008, the petitioner was served with a notice on 28.11.2008. Thus, on the said date, the first respondent had the knowledge of the award at Annexure ‘C’. The petitioner ought to have filed the miscellaneous case under Rule 31(4)(b) within 30 days from the date of the knowledge of the award. The miscellaneous case was filed on 16.2.2009. Thus, there is a delay of about two months in filing the miscellaneous case. The second respondents should not have entertained the miscellaneous case as it was filed beyond 30 days from the date of the knowledge of the award. It is further argued that Sections 4, 5, 12 and 14 of the Indian Limitation Act are applicable to the filing of any appeal or application for revision under the Act having regard to Section 119 of the Act. Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not made applicable for seeking condonation of delay in filing the miscellaneous case under Rule 31(4)(b). The second respondent is not right in allowing the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the miscellaneous case. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal ought to have set aside the order of the second respondent. 4. Though the first respondent is served, he has remained un-represented. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent submits that under Section 119 of the Act, Sections 4, 5, 12 and 14 of the Limitation Act are made applicable to the filing of appeal or application for revision under the Act. There is no bar for condoning the delay in filing a miscellaneous case under Rule 31(4)(b) of the Rules in accordance with Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 5. Before dealing with the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to note the relevant statutory provisions in the light of which the present controversy has to be resolved. Section 70 of the Act provides for referring the disputes to the Registrar for decision. 5. Before dealing with the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to note the relevant statutory provisions in the light of which the present controversy has to be resolved. Section 70 of the Act provides for referring the disputes to the Registrar for decision. Section 71 of the Act states that the Registrar may on receipt of the reference of a dispute under Section 70, decide the dispute himself, or transfer it for disposal to any person who has been invested by the State Government with powers in that behalf, or refer it for disposal to an arbitrator appointed by the Registrar. Chapter XIII of the Act deals with the appeals, revision and review. Sections 105 and 106 of the Act provide for filing of appeals to the Tribunal and to the other authorities. Sections 107 and 108 of the Act are the revisional powers of the Tribunal and the State Government Section 119 of the Act lays down the circumstances under which the provisions of the Limitation Act is applicable to the filing of the appeal or application for revision under the Act. It is as under: “119. Application of Limitation Act: The provisions of Sections 4, 5, 12 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, shall be applicable to the filing of any appeal or application for revision under this Act.” 6. The other relevant provision is Rule 31(4)(b), which is as under: “31. Procedure for reference and arbitration (1) A reference to the Registrar or any dispute under Section 70 of the Act shall be in writing and stamped with such stamp and in accordance with such scale as may be notified by Government in this behalf. (2) xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx (3) xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx (4)(a) xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx (4)(b) The decision or award given shall be in writing and pronounced in open Court. If a party duly summoned fails to attend, the dispute may be decided ex parte. (2) xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx (3) xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx (4)(a) xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx (4)(b) The decision or award given shall be in writing and pronounced in open Court. If a party duly summoned fails to attend, the dispute may be decided ex parte. Ex parte decisions or awards may, on sufficient cause for non-attendance being shown, be set aside by the Registrar, and the dispute ordered to be re-taken on the file and disposed of: Provided that no application for setting aside an ex parte decision or award shall lie, unless made within thirty days from the date of such decision or award, then the party for whose non-attendance, such decision or award was made, had been duly served in the dispute or in other cases within thirty days from the date of knowledge of such decision or award having been made.” 7. It is clear from the above statutory provisions that Sections 4, 5, 12 and 14 of the Limitation Act are made applicable to the filing of any appeal or application for revision under the Act. The said provisions are not made applicable to an application filed under Rule 31(4)(b), for setting aside an ex-parte award, Proviso to Rule 31(4)(b) states that no application for setting aside an ex-parte decision or award shall lie unless made within 30 days from the date of such decision or award, then the party for whose nonattendance, such decision or award was made, had been duly served in the dispute or in other cases within thirty days from the date of knowledge of such decision or award having been made. As a general rule, a proviso added to an enactment is to qualify or create an exception to what is in the enactment, and ordinarily, a proviso is not interpreted as stating a general rule. Though under Rule 31(4)(b) ex-parte decisions may be set aside on sufficient causes for non-attendance being shown, the proviso is intended to limit the period within which the ex-parte decisions or awards may be set aside. 8. As has been noticed above, Sections 4, 5, 12 and 14 of the Limitation Act are made applicable only to the appeal or application for revision under the Act, in other words, the said provisions are not made applicable for seeking condonation of delay in filing an application for setting aside an ex-parte decision or award. 8. As has been noticed above, Sections 4, 5, 12 and 14 of the Limitation Act are made applicable only to the appeal or application for revision under the Act, in other words, the said provisions are not made applicable for seeking condonation of delay in filing an application for setting aside an ex-parte decision or award. It is true that when the first Schedule of the Limitation Act prescribes no time limit for a particular appeal or revision, but the special law prescribes a time limit for it, it can be said that under the first schedule of the Limitation Act, all appeals/revisions can be filed at any time but the special law by limiting it provides for a different period having regard to Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. While the former permits the filing of an appeal at any time, the latter limits it to be filed within the prescribed period. Since the provisions of limitation law are not provided for filing an application under Rule 34(1)(b) having regard to Section 119 of the Act, it is not correct to contend that an application for setting aside an ex-parte decision or award can be filed beyond the period of thirty days from the date of such decision or award or from the date of knowledge of such decision or award having been made. 9. It is to be noted here that the object of the Act is to consolidate and amend the laws relating to Co-operative Societies in the State of Karnataka. It is evident from Section 4 of the Act that the very object of every co-operative society registered thereunder is the promotion of economic interest of its members or of the public in accordance with co-operative principles or a co-operative society established with the object of facilitating the operations of such society. A summary procedure is provided for disposal of the disputes under Section 71 of the Act and the relevant Rules made for the said purpose. The legislature in its wisdom has limited the application of the provisions of the Limitation Act to filing of an appeal or application for revision under the Act. The award is appealable under Section 105 of the Act. Even if there is a delay in filing the appeal, the provisions of the Limitation Act are made applicable for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The award is appealable under Section 105 of the Act. Even if there is a delay in filing the appeal, the provisions of the Limitation Act are made applicable for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The right of appeal is a substantive right. I am of the view that when the Act does not provide for application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, question of entertaining a miscellaneous case filed beyond 30 days from the date of the decision or award or from the date of knowledge of such decision or award having been made by condoning the delay in filing is not justified. 10. In the light of the above discussions, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The order passed by the second respondent dated 1.6.2009 at Annexure ‘J’ and the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, dated 19.2.2010 at Annexure ‘K’ are hereby quashed. Consequently, the miscellaneous case filed by the petitioner for setting aside the award as per Annexure ‘E’ is hereby dismissed. (ii) However, liberty is reserved to the 1st respondent to challenge the award by filing an appeal before the competent authority in accordance with law. (iii) Writ petition stands allowed accordingly. No costs.