1. Petitioners have filed present revision petition against the order of Registrar, Co-operative Society, Jammu dated 28.3.2009, by virtue of which their petitions u/s 70 of Act, have been disposed of by common order. 2. Petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the grounds that, the order passed is contrary to what petitioners prayed before the Arbitrator. That instead of settling the dispute, the cases of petitioners have been referred back. That petitioners have failed to understand as to how they will be in a position to reconcile the accounts. That one Naresh Kumar Pandhi, who was employee of Bank and has been retired, is managing affairs of state as secretary of respondent society, which is against section 17 of Act. That accounts of petitioners have not been properly maintained by respondent. That inquiry officer has blamed the secretary for all mismanagements. 3. I have heard both the counsels at length and perused the record along with written arguments submitted by both the counsels. Counsel for Petitioner has elaborated all grounds taken in revision petition and written argument. Whereas, respondent has supported the order. I have considered all aspects of matter and also gone through relevant law governing the matter in controversy. 4. Record file reveals that, petitioners herein filed petitions u/s 70 of J&K Co-operative Society Act before Registrar of Co-operative Society Jammu separately, but as both the petitions involved common prayer, so both were clubbed together and decided by common order on 28.3.09. 5. It appears that both the petitioners were Bank employees of State Bank of India and were member of Respondent Society. 6. Petitioner No. 1, Anil Kohli, availed loan of Rs. 1.50 lacs in between October 1995 to January 1996. He availed two credits facilities. One term loan was availed on 10.11.1005 for Rs. 50,000/- and another three overdrafts facilities on 27.11.1995,28.12.1995 and 14.3.1996 for Rs. 50,000/- each. In this way total 2 lakhs loan was availed. Both were carrying interest @16% and 18% P.A. compound interest at quarterly rest respectively. 7. Similarly petitioner No. 2, Jail Paul Sharma, availed two loans in the shape of term loan and over draft term loan. Term loan was taken prior to 1990 and its out standing as on 1.7.1990 was Rs. 47,292/-. Another loan over draft facility was availed in piece meal from January 1990 to sept. 1999 with total advance of Rs. 7. Similarly petitioner No. 2, Jail Paul Sharma, availed two loans in the shape of term loan and over draft term loan. Term loan was taken prior to 1990 and its out standing as on 1.7.1990 was Rs. 47,292/-. Another loan over draft facility was availed in piece meal from January 1990 to sept. 1999 with total advance of Rs. 2, 65,900 up to 30.199. Both were carrying interest @16% and 18% P.A compound interest at quarterly rest respectively. 8. That Respondent claimed outstanding amount from Petitioner No. 1 to the tune of Rs. 5.84 lacs till ending 31.3.2007 and from Petitioner No. 2, Rs. 5.95 lacs. 9. Aggrieved by demand, petitioners herein filed two separate petitions u/s 70 of Act, thereby requesting the court below for calling loan account record for settling accounts. In both the petitions, it was stated that they had already paid loan amount and one Naresh Kumar Pandhi, who is non-permanent resident of J&K State has been handling affairs of Society and by usurping the funds of Society made a loss to the Society. That said person has not properly maintained the accounts of Petitioners. That said Naresh Kumar Pandhi is also a guilty of misappropriating the funds. 10. The court below after entertaining the petitions appointed one Chander Mohan Arora, DGM, JCC Bank, Jammu, for examining the accounts of petitioners. He after examining the accounts submitted the report. He observed in his enquiry report in respect of petitioner Anil Kohli that, he was repaying installment of Rs 2000/- per month (Rupees eighteen hundred adjusted towards to loan account and Rupees two hundred credited towards retirement fund), that installment based on maturity period of sanctioned facility and rate of interest at the time of sanction of facility, it come to Rs 4236 for term loan of Rs 50000/- and Rs 3208 for over draft of Rs 1.5 lac. Petitioner Anil Kohli repaid credit facility in the monthly of Rs 1800/-, whereas accrued interest during the first month was Rs 2917/-. Enquiry officer held that even after repayment of first installment of Rs 1800/- the outstanding advance increased by Rs 1117/- PM, so it increases by Rs 1117/- PM. after repayment of each installment and if Anil Kholi continues to deposit Rs 1800/- pm, the advance will not decrease but will go on increasing, so it was a case of wrong fixation of monthly installment. after repayment of each installment and if Anil Kholi continues to deposit Rs 1800/- pm, the advance will not decrease but will go on increasing, so it was a case of wrong fixation of monthly installment. The monthly installment should be Rs 3236/- and not Rs 1800/-. He further held that respondent society maintained two accounts and installment of Rs 1800/- was credited to term loan account. 11. Similarly enquiry officer also found in case of Jai pal Sharma that, he was paying Rs 1000/- to Rs 2300/- per month till Dec-1998 and onwards Rs 3000/- per month. The enquiry officer held that total outstanding till sept-1999 was Rs 3,36,712/- and monthly installment comes to Rs 4933/-. So by paying installment of Rs 3000/- the outstanding advance was increased by Rs 1933/- PM, so in this way instead of decreasing the loan amount it was increasing. 12. Court below after going through the record and report of commissioner passed following directions while disposing of both the petitions:- "Petitioners being themselves members of Banking fraternity shall re-examine their accounts for the sake of reconciliation and satisfaction. The Secretary of the Cooperative Society shall provide access to both the Petitioners to the record pertaining to them. The rate of interest shall be floating confirming to the Prime Lending Rate applicable from time to time. The accounts clubbed together shall be bifurcated and the interest thereof calculated afresh as per the Prime Lending Rates of the time. The balance account arrived at after re-fixation and splitting of the accounts with 1% rebate in interest rate shall be paid by the petitioners within a period of six months in six equal installments" 13. As per Section 70 of Cooperative Society Act, 1989, if any dispute touching the Constitution, Management or the business of any Cooperative Society arises, the Registrar has power for deciding it, when dispute is referred to him. While perusing the order of Registrar, I find that Registrar has not finally decided the matter but has given a direction to Society for settling the accounts by bifurcating two accounts and amount arrived after re-fixation shall be paid by the Petitioner within six months in six installments. 14. Petitioners herein instead of approaching the society have filed present revision petition. 14. Petitioners herein instead of approaching the society have filed present revision petition. Revision lies only against a final adjudication, which decide the right of parties, in the present case no any final rights of parties, have been decided. 15. Both the petitioners were bank employees and now have been retired. At the time of retirement they would have certainly become responsible officers. Petitioners would be knowing that, a meager installment pertaining to huge amount, will not satisfy the loan amount during their life time. Instead of decreasing the loan, it will go on increasing. Even a prudent man can think that, by repaying meager installment, the huge amount cannot be repaid. So I am of the opinion that the intention of petitioners was not good at the time of availing of loan. 16. Although respondent secretary has also been held responsible by inquiry officer, but this does not mean that petitioner are not entitle to liquidate the loan amount. This money was public money, so it cannot be swindled by any person. 17. After perusing the order of court below, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit and appropriate order in the present circumstances of the case. By passing the impugned order, the court below has not exceeded the jurisdiction. In other way the order passed by the court below has resolved the dispute in his right prospective. 18. In view of what has been discussed above, the present revision petition is dismissed. The file of the trial court is sent back along with this order. The file of this court be consigned to record after due completion.