1. This revision petition has been directed against the Award dated 27-03-2010, passed by the Registrar Cooperative Societies J&K Jammu in Arbitration petition titled, Jammu Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs Managing Committee, the JAK Ex-Servicemen Cooperative Store Ltd, by virtue of which arbitration petition filed by the respondent has been allowed. 2. Petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that, award impugned is against law and facts. That award has been passed without application of mind. That respondent has failed to prove any claim against petitioner before the court below. That court below has passed award on extraneous consideration. 3. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Record file reveals that petitioner herein approached bank for cash credit limit of 240 lacs. for establishing Vanaspati project. It was sanctioned on 20-7-1992; the cash credit limit was sanctioned only after obtaining documents and execution of mortgaged deed. This cash credit limit of Rs. 240 lacs was further enhanced to the tune of Rs. 340 lacs on 27-3-01 carrying 16% interest. Petitioner herein did not repay the installment regularly and accordingly a notice was issued to the petitioner herein for repaying the amount availed. But no response was shown by the petitioner and accordingly amount of Rs 27637039.41 became outstanding against petitioner herein as on 31-3-2003. 5. Thereafter an arbitration petition was filed under the Act before Joint Registrar (Special) Cooperative Societies, Jammu. Thereafter the matter was taken by Registrar on the application of petitioner herein. After adjudicating the matter court below passed the award /order for recovery. The concluding Para of order/ award reads as under:- "Keeping the above background in view, an award amounting to rs 27637039.41 is passed in favour of the petitioner bank. The awarded amount shall be paid by the respondent Cooperative Store in monthly installments, so as to liquidate the entire amount within a period of one year from the date the copy of this order is served upon the Cooperative Store by the awardee Bank. The quantum of monthly installments shall be worked out by the two as per their convenience, so as to ensure that the entire awarded amount is recovered within stipulated period of one year. The recovery of the interest amount debited to the account after the filling of the Arbitration petition as mentioned above shall be taken up subsequently. The quantum of monthly installments shall be worked out by the two as per their convenience, so as to ensure that the entire awarded amount is recovered within stipulated period of one year. The recovery of the interest amount debited to the account after the filling of the Arbitration petition as mentioned above shall be taken up subsequently. However, the genuiness of the amount shall be determined afresh and calculated as per the norms governing calculation of interest on NPA Accounts. The recovery of the crystallized amount of interest shall be made by the Respondent Cooperative Store within a period of one year from the date of liquidation of the amount as stood on 31/3/2003, the date of filing of the petition. In case of non compliance on the part of Respondent Cooperative Store, the bank shall be at liberty to seek the execution of the award as per the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act. The petition is disposed off accordingly. Interlocutory orders shall stand vacated. File to go the records after completion. Dated 27-03-2010 Sd/- Registrar Cooperative Societies, J&K Jammu 6. Counsel for the petitioner while arguing the matter has elaborated all the grounds taken in the memo of the petition. It has been argued that rule 39(5) of act has not been followed by court below while dealing the matter. Whereas respondent bank has supported the order. He has further argued that, hard earned money of public has been swallowed by petitioner herein. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole aspect of the matter. 8. Interim orders of court below file reveals that, petitioner despite availing so many opportunities, failed to file objections to main petition before Joint Registrar (Spl), where matter was pending. Further in order to linger on the matter, it appears that petitioner herein filed an application before Registrar for calling the file from the court of Joint Registrar Special. This prayer was allowed. It further appears that bank on 25-02-05 filed an application for attachment of property of petitioner herein U/S 154 of J&K Cooperative Societies Act 1989, where interim order was passed by court below, thereby directing petitioner herein to route all transactions through JCC Bank. Another application was filed by the bank, thereby restraining the petitioner herein from disposing of the machinery and other assets in term of section 154 of ACT. Another application was filed by the bank, thereby restraining the petitioner herein from disposing of the machinery and other assets in term of section 154 of ACT. On this application, petitioner herein was asked not to dispose off machinery and other assets till final disposal of the main petition. Thereafter petitioner herein again did not appear regularly and again bank made an application on 3-2-07, for attachment of property, to this application petitioner filled objections on 21.2.09, but thereafter neither petitioner appeared nor did his counsel appear, so court below was left with no option except to decide the matter on 27.3.2010. 9. Statement of account of bank reveals that as on 31-3-09, an amount of Rs 5, 58, 23,996.41 has become outstanding against petitioner herein. 10. This tribunal exercises power of revision under section 160 of Cooperative Societies Act 1989. Section 160 reads as under:- Cooperative Societies Act 1989 Section 160 : Revision (1) The Government or the Tribunal may call for and examine the record of any proceedings held or inspection made under this Act or the proceedings of any person vested with powers of Registrar or acting under his authority and if the Government or the Tribunal is of the opinion that any order, decision, or award or any proceedings so called for should be modified, annulled or revised, the Government or the Tribunal may make such order thereon as it may think fit: Provided that the Government or Tribunal, as the case may be, shall, before passing such order, give an opportunity of being heard to the person likely to be adversely effected by such order. 11. Now law is very much clear and settled that, Revisional powers are exercised only, when order impugned has been passed without jurisdiction or authority concerned has passed order after exceeding his jurisdiction or order is perverse in nature. 12. Money lying with the Co-Operative Society or Bank or Financial Institution is money of members and of public. In present case conduct of petitioner does seems to be reasonable and honest, because file of court below reveals that, many times interim order were passed with regard to protection of property. Before court below petitioner herein never remained serious in defending the case. Even petitioner did not file any reply to main petition and other applications, except to application for attachment of property. Before court below petitioner herein never remained serious in defending the case. Even petitioner did not file any reply to main petition and other applications, except to application for attachment of property. This court cannot consider any new pleas, which were never raised before court below. 13. Counsel for petitioner has also argued that court below has not followed rule 39 (5) of cooperative society rules. I have gone through this rule. It prescribe that while deciding matter, the authority shall record brief note of evidence of parties witnesses, who attend and upon the evidence so recorded, the decision shall be made. 14. This rule is applicable only, when some substantial defense is taken and court finds that real controversy requires some oral or documentary evidence. In present case petitioner has not filled any objection to main petition and so no substantial defense has been taken by him before court below. Where a party to litigation does not file legal or fair reply to the allegation leveled against him then court has to take adverse inference that he has nothing to say or has no evidence to rebut the allegation leveled against him, so this argument also does not hold good. A huge money of bank in several crores, has been involved in present case. 15. Cumulative effect of whole discussion is that, this revision petition is devoid of any merits. Hence it is dismissed. Order of court below is upheld. Already much time has expired, so respondent shall take coercive steps in recovering award. File of court below is sent back along with this order.