JUDGMENT : K.R. Shriram, J. 1. These are Letters Patent Appeals filed challenging the judgment and order dated 29th November 2012 passed by a Single Judge of this Court in a group of 13 Writ Petitions. As done in the impugned judgment, for the sake of brevity, the representative facts are taken from Writ Petition No.11011 of 2012 filed by Respondent No.1. 2. The Appellant is District Central Co-operative Bank in Pune District registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and is the Apex Bank for Pune District. Various Primary Agricultural Credit Societies are its Members. Respondent No.1 is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society. The 1st Respondent had applied to be enrolled as a Member of the Appellant-Society. The same was refused in December 2009. Against the refusal, the first Respondent had filed an Appeal under Section 23(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for the sake of brevity referred as “the MCS Act”) before the Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Society, Pune Division, Pune. The Appeal was filed and came to be registered on 11th November 2011. There was a delay of about 614 days in preferring the Appeal. Therefore, the 1st Respondent filed an application for seeking condonation of delay of about 614 days in preferring the Appeal. The Divisional Joint Registrar, by his order dated 8th May 2012, disposed of the condonation application on the ground that there is no period prescribed for deciding the Appeal filed before the Registrar and therefore a question of delay condonation has not arisen and the said application was allowed. 3. Against the said order, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition in this Court. Other connected matters were also filed and all the Petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 29th June 2012 holding that as there was no period of limitation prescribed, three years should be deemed to be reasonable period to avail that remedy. The order dated 29th June 2012 was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.133 of 2012 with connected matters on 8th August 2012. 4. Respondent No.1-Society and similarly situated other Societies in other matters were given leave to file additional affidavits before the Joint Divisional Registrar to justify the reason for late filing of the Appeal. No such additional affidavits, however, were filed. 4. Respondent No.1-Society and similarly situated other Societies in other matters were given leave to file additional affidavits before the Joint Divisional Registrar to justify the reason for late filing of the Appeal. No such additional affidavits, however, were filed. These affidavits were to substantiate the contention of Respondent No.1-Society that between November 2009 and till actual filing of Appeal before the Divisional Joint Registrar, there were some negotiations and discussions between parties which contributed to delay. 5. Following this, the Divisional Joint Registrar, by his order dated 6th November 2012, condoned the delay. The Divisional Joint Registrar has also observed, while condoning the delay, that Respondent No.1-Society is functional at the bottom of ladder and above them is placed the District Co-operative Bank namely the present Petitioner and at the top of the ladder is the State Co-operative Bank. It is pointed out that every Member of Respondent No.1-Society gets benefits of the various Government Schemes. 6. As observed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, the Divisional Joint Registrar has also looked into the fact that Respondent No.1 is a registered cooperative society which has come into existence and functioning with necessary Members and the Authority felt the need to examine whether benefits of various Government Welfare Schemes can be extended to Members of Respondent No.1-Society or not. The Division Bench of this Court in the earlier round in Letters Patent Appeal No.133 of 2012 has also found that period of three years cannot be said to be reasonable in all cases. At the same time, what is reasonable has not been specified. 7. As per sub-section1(a) of the MCS Act, the Society is supposed to take decision within 30 days from the date of the receipt of application and to communicate the same to the Applicant within 60 days from the date of receipt of said application. Thus, there is limitation prescribed for Appellant to take decision and to communicate the same. Thereafter, the period which is prescribed for deciding the Appeal if filed before the Registrar is three months from the date of its receipt and it is also mandatory for the Registrar to communicate his decision to the parties within 15 days from the date of decision. There is no period prescribed for filing of the Appeal. Thereafter, the period which is prescribed for deciding the Appeal if filed before the Registrar is three months from the date of its receipt and it is also mandatory for the Registrar to communicate his decision to the parties within 15 days from the date of decision. There is no period prescribed for filing of the Appeal. When period of limitation has not been prescribed then what is reasonable or not depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and is a discretionary order and cannot be interfered with unless there is any arbitrariness or malafide or perversity. 8. The Divisional Joint Registrar, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, exercised his discretion to condone the delay. The learned Single Judge has also come to the conclusion that the discretion exercised by the Divisional Joint Registrar in entertaining the Appeals cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse and the Authority has only condoned the delayed approach. The Single Judge has also observed that the entitlement of Respondent No.1 to seek membership is to be looked into on merits and it is open for the Appellant to point out why membership cannot be extended. The Single Judge has very correctly declined to interfere with the order dated 7th November 2012 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar. 9. In the circumstances, the Appeals are rejected with no order as to costs. 10. In view of the above, the respective Civil Applications in the Letters Patent Appeals also do not survive and stand disposed.