1. The impugned order passed by respondent No:2 came into existence in the following manner:- 2. The petitioner ( here-in-after the JAKFED) supplied Chemical Fertilizers to respondent No:1 (here-in-after the Society) on payment basis. On account of failure to make the payment, JAKFED filed arbitration application for recovery of Rs. 105 lacs with interest before Special Registrar Cooperative Societies, Jammu on 19.9.1987. Both the parties participated in the arbitration proceedings through their authorized representatives. The Society filed objections on 23.11.1987 and denied liability towards payment of any amount on the ground that claims submitted to the JAKFED have not been fully accounted for. 3. The Society further claimed that it was supplying chemical fertilizers through primary societies and dealers under the direction of Government, who have not made any payment and unless such payment is made, it will not be possible for the Society to liquidate the claimed amount. 4. After recording the statement of representatives of both the parties namely Jugdish Raj and Dihan Singh and taking into account the material placed before him, the Deputy Registrar came to the conclusion that society was liable to pay an outstanding amount of Rs. 78.40 lacs to the JAKFED and passed an award on 27.12.1988 for the payment of this amount to JAKFED, but without interest. The Society was made liable to pay this amount on the ground that it slept over the matter and allowed the dealers to retain the cost with them without any justification. 5. After the passing of award, JAKFED filed an execution application, whereupon property of Society was attached and same was directed to be put to sale/auction. The sale officer locked the property of Society. 6. On 30.3.1993, after about four years when property was attached, the Society preferred an appeal against the award dated 27.12.1988 as well as order of attachment of property before the Registrar Cooperative Society Jammu. An application for stay of execution proceedings and release of attached property was also filed. The Registrar stayed the execution proceedings and directed the JAKFED to file objections. On the adjourned three dates none appeared for appellant whereupon Registrar dismissed the appeal for default of appearance of appellant on 29.5.1993. 7. On 22.6.1993, Society filed an application for restoration of appeal. The Registrar stayed the execution proceedings and directed the JAKFED to file objections. On the adjourned three dates none appeared for appellant whereupon Registrar dismissed the appeal for default of appearance of appellant on 29.5.1993. 7. On 22.6.1993, Society filed an application for restoration of appeal. An application for stay of execution proceedings was filed on 26.6.1993 as sale officer vide his letter No:2078-81 dated 23.6.1993 had sent a Demand Notice to appellant for payment of award amount before putting the attached property to sale. Though JAKFED had filed caveat, and notice was required to be issued to the caveator before passing any stay order. Registrar stayed implementation of Demand Notice and adjourned the application for 10.7.1993 for hearing the caveator a procedure not recognized by law. 8. The JAKFED instead of going to the court of Registrar filed two revision petitions before this Tribunal one against the order dated 30.3.1993, when appeal was filed by Society against the award and 2nd against the order of stay dated 26.6.1993, in application for restoration of appeal. This Tribunal after calling record and hearing the learned counsel for parties disposed of the revision by a common order dated 21.11.1995 in the following terms"- 1. Registrar has powers to hear appeal. 2. The order dated 26.6.1993 has become infractuous because Registrar had issued it only up to 10.7.1993. 3. Registrar shall 1st dispose of restoration application 4. In case appeal is restored, question of limitation shall be decided 1st of all. 9. The case was remanded to the Registrar for disposal. Instead of acting as directed by this Tribunal the Registrar finally passed an order on 29.11.2000 directing both the parties to reconcile the amount and submit the report on next date i.e. 30.12.2000. On the adjourned date the Registrar again directed both the parties to reconcile their amount within two weeks without fails otherwise claim will automatically become intenable. 10. Surprised by the order of Registrar acting as an original court instead of appellate court the JAKFED preferred the present revision petition on the following grounds:- 1. In terms of remand order the Registrar was to decide the question of limitation in filing appeal by Society because the appeal was late by about 5 years. 2. That the Registrar without taking into consideration the non applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act condoned the limitation. 3. In terms of remand order the Registrar was to decide the question of limitation in filing appeal by Society because the appeal was late by about 5 years. 2. That the Registrar without taking into consideration the non applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act condoned the limitation. 3. The Registrar was competent only to look into the legality or proprietary of the award and to dismiss or accept the appeal and not to act as an arbitrary directing the parties to reconcile. 4. The appeal filed by Society is time barred and Section 5 of limitation has not been made applicable to the Cooperative Societies Act. 11. In this case Mr.B.B.Kotwal is the Advocate for the Society. He stopped appearing for pretty long time to address the arguments pending for last about seven years whereupon Society came to be placed exparte. Thus I have heard the learned counsel for the JAKFED only and examined the record. 12. From the facts disclosed here-in-above, it is noticed that appeal filed by Society was dismissed for absence of the Society on 29.5.1993. For re-admission of the same the Society filed an application on 22.6.1993. The JAKFED which had filed a caveat before the Registrar was not heard. The Registrar adopted a novel procedure and instead of issuing notice to the Caveator passed stay order. The JAKFED filed a revision petition before this Tribunal against the order of the Registrar. 13. This Tribunal directed the Registrar on remanding the case to first dispose of restoration application and then the question of limitation in filing appeal. This direction was inconsonance with the requirement of law. 14. After goring through the record of the appellate court, it is noticed that the matter was taken up on 22,9.1996 and adjourned from one date to another date till 29.11.2000. During this period the Registrar failed to take up the application for re-admission of appeal. Paying no need to the direction of this Tribunal to decide this application, the Registrar took up the appeal directly for disposal and passed the impugned order on 29.11.2000 and subsequently on 30.12.2000. There is no reference to the application for readmission of appeal in the interim order passed by Registrar from 22.9.1996 to 29.11.2000. 15. Even without the direction of this Tribunal the Registrar had to decide the application for re-admission of the appeal in which he failed miserably. There is no reference to the application for readmission of appeal in the interim order passed by Registrar from 22.9.1996 to 29.11.2000. 15. Even without the direction of this Tribunal the Registrar had to decide the application for re-admission of the appeal in which he failed miserably. He was supposed to decide the application for re-admission first and then take up the appeal for disposal. The facts thus remains that Registrar has not disposed of the application for re-admission of the appeal. 16. Only after accepting such application he was supposed to hear the appeal and pass appropriate order. Without deciding such application the impugned order passed by Registrar are patently illegal and without jurisdiction. 17. It is patently to mention here that the Registrar has even traveled beyond the scope of his jurisdiction. He was sitting in appeal. Thus he was supposed to either allow the appeal or dismiss the same or remand the appeal. Instead he has exercised the powers which were vested with the arbitrator. Had the Registrar noticed that arbitrator has not followed the procedure or committed any illegality, the matter should have been remanded to the arbitrator for doing the needful. As noticed the Registrar has acted as an arbitrator in directing the parties to enter into reconciliation which is beyond the jurisdiction of the appellate court. On this count the impugned order passed by the appellate court are not sustainable. 18. Accordingly this revision is allowed and impugned orders are set aside. The case is remanded back to the Registrar with a direction to first dispose of the application for re-admission of the appeal and in the event the appeal is re-admitted to dispose of the same after taking into consideration the question of limitation in filing the same, in accordance with the provision of law. 19. The petitioner through his counsel is directed to appear before the appellate court on 15.4.2010 which shall proceed in the matter after summoning the Society. 20. Record of the court below be sent back alongwith copy of this order. 21. File of this Court be consigned to record after due compilation.