JUDGMENT 1. Being aggrieved by the order of Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ujjain passed in case No. 78/107/2005-2006 dated 11.6.2007 appellant filed this appeal u/s. 78 (2) of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act 1960 (in short Act). 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the Appellant has borrowed a loan from the Respondent No.1 Bank. Due to the non payment of loan on time the respondent No.1 filed a dispute u/s 64 of the Act before the Dy. Registrar Co-operative Societies Mandsaur, and the Dy. Registrar after hearing the case decreed the claim of the bank vide order dated 30.6.2005. The Respondent No.1 being aggrieved by the order of the Dy. Registrar preferred an appeal before the Jt. Registrar Ujjain in which point of Jurisdiction was raised. The Jt. Registrar allowed the appeal on the ground of jurisdiction and thereby held that in view of the Notification of the State Govt. dated 26.7.99 the Dy. Registrar is not empowered to entertain a dispute u/s 64 in respect of the Respondent No.1 which is a financing bank. Hence the appellant has filed this appeal which was admitted for final hearing on the following substantial questions of law : i) Whether the appeal is filed within limitation? ii) Whether the Jt. Registrar has erred in holding that Dy. Registrar did not have any jurisdiction in light of Notification dated 26.7.1999? iii) Whether the Jt. Registrar has erred in directing the lower Court not to take into account the period of limitation? 3. Question No. (i) Shri Vinay Gandhi learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the impugned order of the Joint Registrar has been passed on 11.6.07 but the copy of the order was provided to the appellant on 15.12.2008 and after that appellant filed this appeal. There is no dispute about it that the copy of the impugned order was delivered to the appellant on 15.12.2008 and the appellant, has filed this appeal before the Tribunal on 27.12.2008. Therefore this appeal is well within the prescribed time limit. Hence question No. (i) is answered accordingly. 4. Question No. (ii) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the order of the Joint Registrar that, Deputy Registrar has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute u/s 64 of the Act is illegal and erroneous and liable to be quashed. Therefore this appeal is well within the prescribed time limit. Hence question No. (i) is answered accordingly. 4. Question No. (ii) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the order of the Joint Registrar that, Deputy Registrar has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute u/s 64 of the Act is illegal and erroneous and liable to be quashed. Shri Sanjay Vajpai learned counsel for the respondent contends that the Deputy Registrar is incompetent to decide the dispute u/s 64 of the Act between a financing bank and member. He submits that column No.4 of the said Notification provides limits to the powers of the Deputy Registrar only to such a society which he can register. In other words the Deputy Registrar is incompetent and has no jurisdiction to decide any dispute between any society which he cannot register and its members. 5. The question required to be decided is whether the Deputy Registrar is or is not competent to decide a dispute between a financing bank and its members u/s 64 of the Act. 6. Section 3 of the Act empowers the State Government to appoint a Registrar of Cooperative Societies for the State and the State Government may also appoint one or more officers of the category viz., Additional Registrar, Joint Registrar, Deputy Registrar, Assistant Registrar and such other categories of officers, as may be prescribed, to assist him in the discharge of his duties. Sub-section (2) to section 3 of the Act, empowers the State Government to specify the powers and duties conferred and imposed on the Registrar by or under the Act. The relevant provisions are as under: Section 3 (2) -- "The officers appointed to assist the Registrar shall, within such areas as the State Government may specify, exercise such powers and perform such duties conferred and imposed on the Registrar by or under this Act as the State Government may, by special or general order, so direct." 7. The relevant provisions are as under: Section 3 (2) -- "The officers appointed to assist the Registrar shall, within such areas as the State Government may specify, exercise such powers and perform such duties conferred and imposed on the Registrar by or under this Act as the State Government may, by special or general order, so direct." 7. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 (2) of the Act the State Government has issued Notification No. F-5-1-99-XV-I-C dated 26 July 1999 whereby the State Government directs the powers conferred on the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Madhya Pradesh (1) By section of the said Act as specified in Column (2) of the First Schedule below and by the rules of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962, as specified in Column (3) of the said Schedule shall also be exercisable by the Deputy Registrars of Co -operative Societies to the extent as specified in column (4) and within the area as specified in Column (5) of the said Schedule. FIRST SCHEDULE S.No. Section Rules Extent of Powers of the Act (1) (2) (3) (4) 35 64 -- All powers of the Registrar in respect of all societies. 8. As per Notification referred to herein above, the Deputy Registrar has been conferred powers of the Registrar in respect of all types of societies. We may now notice the nature and extent of the powers of the Registrar under section 64 of the Act, which have been delegated to Deputy Registrar. The notification leaves no doubt in our mind to indicate that all powers of Registrar in respect of all societies conferred under section 64 of the Act, have been delegated to or conferred on Deputy Registrar. There is no restriction or limitation on the exercise of the powers, under section 64 of the Act, conferred on Deputy Registrar for deciding the disputes. In this connection we would like to refer the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court 1977 MPLJ 831 Anant Laxman Purohit v. Indore Paraspar Sahkari Bank, Indore. In this case the Hon'ble High Court held that : The Deputy Registrar however is competent to decide any dispute which the Registrar is empowered to decide. He can therefore decide a dispute between a Financial Society and its member under section 64 (1). (para-8)". In this case the Hon'ble High Court held that : The Deputy Registrar however is competent to decide any dispute which the Registrar is empowered to decide. He can therefore decide a dispute between a Financial Society and its member under section 64 (1). (para-8)". "(8) We may now notice the nature and extent of the powers of the Registrar under section 64 of the Act, which have been delegated to Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar. The notification leaves no doubt in our minds to indicate that all powers of Registrar in respect of societies conferred on Deputy Registrar. There is no restriction or limitation on the exercise of the powers under section 64 of the Act, now conferred on Deputy Registrar for deciding the disputes. The Deputy Registrar is, therefore, competent to decide any dispute that could have been decided by the Registrar under section 64 of the Act. To put it differently, what the Registrar under section 64 of the Act could have done, the Deputy Registrar can equally decide and determine a dispute that falls within the purview of section 64 of the Act. Consequently, the Deputy Registrar is entitled and empowered to decide a dispute between a financing bank and its members. It is also pertinent to notice that column No.4 of the notification puts limits to the powers of the Assistant Registrar to such a society which he can register. In other words, the Assistant Registrar is incompetent and has no jurisdiction to decide any dispute between the first respondent society which is a financing bank, and its member -- the petitioner Anant who has been expelled from the society. The view taken by the Board of Revenue, while disposing of the appeal preferred by the Society, to the effect that the Assistant Registrar has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute in the present case, is perfectly justified and is in accordance with law. We are, therefore, unable to agree with Shri A.K. Chitale, learned counsel for the petitioner-Anant, that the Board of Revenue has committed a grievous error in law in finding that the Assistant Registrar is not entitled to decide the dispute in question. For these reasons, we answer the first question in the affirmative and against the petitioner -- Anant." 9. We are, therefore, unable to agree with Shri A.K. Chitale, learned counsel for the petitioner-Anant, that the Board of Revenue has committed a grievous error in law in finding that the Assistant Registrar is not entitled to decide the dispute in question. For these reasons, we answer the first question in the affirmative and against the petitioner -- Anant." 9. The Deputy Registrar is, therefore, competent to decide any dispute that could have been decided by the Registrar under section 64 of the Act. The substantial question of law no. (ii) is answered accordingly. In light of the above discussions we are of the opinion that the Joint Registrar has erred in holding that the Dy. Registrar had no jurisdiction in the dispute filed before him. Hence the appeal is allowed and the order of the Jt. Registrar is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Jt. Registrar, Ujjain to decide the same afresh on merits. Parties are directed to appear before the Jt. Registrar Ujjain 8.9.2011. The Registrar of the Tribunal is directed to ensure the transmission of record of the lower Court on or before 8.9.2011, Parties to bear their own cost.