(Oral) Vipin Sanghi, J.:- 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to challenge the order dated 14th September, 1998 passed by Sh. T.P. Joseph, Arbitrator/Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies under Section 60 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 (“the Act”) and the revisional order dated 1st February, 1999 passed by Delhi Cooperative Tribunal under Section 78(6) of the Act. 2. Late Sh. Beni Prasad Jain, the father of the petitioner was the original member of the respondent No.1 society. It appears that he died on 27th July, 1982 leaving behind a Will dated 06th July, 1982 bequeathing his estate amongst his legal heirs. The petitioner as one of the sons, it appears, was also a beneficiary under the Will. So far as the membership with the respondent society of late Shri Beni Prasad Jain and the interest arising therefrom is concerned, the same was bequeathed by Sh. Beni Prasad Jain in favour of his widow Smt. Ram Pyari Jain. 3. The petitioner applied for transfer of the share of the society in his name on the basis of a nomination claimed to have been made in his favour by his father in the records of the society. It appears that the society called the petitioner for a hearing on 09th December, 1984. However, the share of his father was not transferred in favour of the petitioner by the respondent society. Even according to the petitioner, despite his application, the society did not accede to his request and in the list of members circulated to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies in the year 1997 the name of Sh. Beni Prasad/Ram Pyari Jain/Pratibha Jain was mentioned and crossed. The name of the petitioner was conspicuous by its absence. Smt. Ram Pyari Jain the mother of the petitioner contested his claim before the respondent no.1 society. 4. It appears that a memorandum of understanding dated 31st March, 1987 executed by the petitioner, his brother and his mother was placed before the respondent society by his mother, as per which the petitioner forego/relinquish his right in the membership and the resultant interest in the flat. It also appears that Smt. Ram Pyari Jain, who was substituted in place of her husband in the records of the society interacted with the society and made several payments towards the construction of the flat pursuant to the memorandum of understanding. 5. It also appears that Smt. Ram Pyari Jain, who was substituted in place of her husband in the records of the society interacted with the society and made several payments towards the construction of the flat pursuant to the memorandum of understanding. 5. The petitioner sought to invoke arbitration under Section 60 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, sometime in the year 1998, to stake his claim, as aforesaid. The Arbitrator passed the order dated 14th September, 1998 thereby dismissing the claim petition on the ground of the same being time-barred, noticing the aforesaid facts. 6. The submission of the petitioner was that since he was the nominee in the records of the society, he ought to have been substituted in place of his father. Moreover, he also questioned the validity of the Will and the MOU. The Arbitrator, however, declined the application under Section 60 on the ground of the same being barred by limitation as it had been preferred after 16 long years of the dispute first arising in this case. 7. The petitioner challenged the order dated 14th September, 1998 of the Deputy Registrar by way of a revision petition under Section 78(6) of the Act. The Delhi Cooperative Tribunal rejected the revision petition by its order dated 01st February, 1999 on the ground of locus standi since the petitioner failed to even produce the so called nomination in his favour and as he had taken no steps to question the Will or the MoU before a competent court of jurisdiction. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The record shows that even according to the petitioner, he had made the application to seek substitution of membership in his name in the year 1984. The petitioner, admittedly, did not take any steps even though the society did not favourably respond to his request. It also appears that in the interregnum i.e. in the year 1989 Smt. Ram Prayi, while relying upon the MoU dated 31st March, 1987, exchanged correspondences with the respondent society between 1987 and 27th November, 1987 and 25th October, 1990. She also made various payments in this period through pay orders for which she also produced the certificates issued by PNB, Model Town, Delhi dated 24th July, 1989, 28th July, 1989 and 29th July, 1989. She also made various payments in this period through pay orders for which she also produced the certificates issued by PNB, Model Town, Delhi dated 24th July, 1989, 28th July, 1989 and 29th July, 1989. On 03rd March, 1990 Smt. Ram Pyari Jain also issued a public notice in “The Statesman” debarring the petitioner and another of her son from inheriting the property in question. All these documents were filed by the Respondent Society before the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi. 9. Undoubtedly, the cause of action to initiate appropriate legal proceedings arose in favour of the petitioner in 1984, on account of the omission of the respondent society in mutating his name in place of his father's after his death on 27th July 1982; when Smt. Ram Pyari Jain interacted with the respondent society, made payments for the flat and debarred the petitioner from any rights in respect of the flat in question through a public notice. However, the petitioner did not take any steps either to challenge the Will or the Memorandum of Understanding which were relied upon by the respondent society to mutate the membership in favour of Smt. Ram Pyari Jain and thereafter in favour of Smt. Pratibha Jain. He also did not seek to invoke Section 60 of the Act within the statutory period of limitation prescribed in Section 60(4)(ii) of the Act. 10. We may note that even though the rights claimed by the petitioner were adverse to the interest of Smt. Ram Pyari Jain and her legatee, the petitioner did not implead either Smt. Ram Pyari Jain or her legatee Smt. Pratibha Jain in the proceeding under Section 60. We may also note the conduct of the petitioner in that he has neither made any offer to make payment nor actually paid even a single penny in respect of the flat over the years. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in our view, there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the Arbitrator on 14th September, 1998 or by the order dated 01st February, 1999 by the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 12. The status quo order passed on 25th May, 1999 stands vacated. The respondent society shall, accordingly, inform Smt. Pratibha Jain of her rights arising out of membership No.7 and proceed in the matter in accordance with law.