ORDER 1. As a very short controversy, which is settled by a judgment rendered by this Court, is involved in the matter the case is being disposed of at this stage. 2. Petitioner was elected as President of respondent No. 2 society and certain proceedings were initiated under section 49 (7-A) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The Board of Directors of the society in question headed by the petitioner was superceded and the matter travelled to the M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal has considered various aspects of the matter and vide order Annexure P-4 dated 28.6.2013 allowed the revision petition filed by the petitioner, held his supersession to be illegal and set aside the supersession. However, after having so held on the ground that during the pendency of supersession a new body is being elected, no relief with regard to reinstatement has been granted. 3. Shri Siddharth Gulati, learned counsel for the petitioner raised a singular point in support of his contention to say that once the order of supersession is set aside, a body which is superseded is entitled to be reinstated for the period when the body is prevented from functioning and discharging its duties. Reinstatement of a superseded body is required to be done and the superseded body permitted to function for the remaining period of its elected tenure which the body was prevented from functioning due to the order of supersession. 4. Placing reliance on a judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Shravan Kumar Deepavare v. Dy. Registrar/Dy. Commissioner Cooperative, Jabalpur and Others reported in 2013 RN, 106 (Annexure P-5) Shri Siddharth Gulati, learned counsel seeks indulgence into the matter. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties it is clear that the question with regard to the consequential effect that arises when the order of supersession is set aside has already been considered and decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shravan Kumar Deepavare (supra). 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties it is clear that the question with regard to the consequential effect that arises when the order of supersession is set aside has already been considered and decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shravan Kumar Deepavare (supra). It has been held by the Division Bench after taking note of various judgments of the Supreme Court that once an order of supersession is set aside and the superseded body is reinstated in office then for the period when body is prevented from functioning due to order of supersession the elected body which is superseded is entitled to discharge its duties from remaining period which it was prevented from functioning. 6. It has been held by the Division Bench in the aforesaid case that the period for which Board of Directors remained in suspension, will be excluded in computing period of five years from which it was elected. 7. In the present case the body which was superseded was prevented from functioning and completing its 5 years term of office for which it was elected, therefore, the period for which it remained under suspension should be excluded the body is entitled to function for the said remaining period. 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid this petition is allowed. The order of tribunal preventing the elected body under the president-ship of the petitioner from functioning is quashed and it is directed that for the period when the Board of Directors under the president-ship of petitioner remain under suspension the same be excluded and for the remaining period petitioner body be reinstated and permitted to discharge its duty i.e. to complete its term of 5 years. 9. With the aforesaid the petition stands allowed and disposed of.