ORDER 1. Challenge in this petition is to the legality and validity of the order dated 12.09.2001 (Annexure P-l), whereunder, the Registrar quashed the order dated 10.04.2001, passed by the learned Additional Registrar, Raipur (C.G.), in Revision Case No. 80-A/12/2001, holding that no revision against the order passed in appeal by the Joint Registrar was maintainable before the Additional Registrar. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner, are that the respondent No.4 Smt. Kanti Devi Khare (for short Ms. Khare) filed an application under Section 64 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "the Act, 1960") seeking cancellation of the allotment and sale deed executed by the respondent No.5 in favour of the petitioner. It was stated that the respondent No.5 society allotted plot No. 01 area 3330 sq.ft. and executed a sale deed in favour of Ms. Khare. Ms. Khare failed to construct the house on the said plot within specified period and, as such, a notice was issued to her on 22.07.1995, thereafter one more notice was served on 13.03.1996 and last notice dated 27.04.1996 was published in the newspaper namely 'Dainik Bhaskar' and 'Deshbandhu'. 3. The Deputy Registrar, by order dated 08.03.2000 (Annexure P-2) dismissed the application holding that the petitioner was rightly allotted the plot and ownership in accordance with law. The petitioner herein had initiated the construction after obtaining prior approval. There-against, Ms. Khare preferred an appeal under Section 78 of the Act, 1960 before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Raipur in appeal No.78-l80/2000. The Joint Registrar by order dated 09.10.2000 (Annexure P-3) quashed the order dated 08.03.2000 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Deputy Registrar and held that the land was allotted to the petitioner herein was done after cancellation of the sale deed granted in favour of Ms. Khare, which was not in accordance with law. There against, a revision was preferred before the Additional Registrar. The matter was heard by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, in Revision Case No. 80-A/12/2001. The Additional Registrar in its order dated 10.04.2001 (Annexure P-4) found that the Joint Registrar had decided the case ex parte without affording proper opportunity of hearing, as it was not proved that the petitioner herein was served proper notice as in all the hearings, he remained absent on 12.09.2000 and 19.09.2000. It is nowhere recorded that the service has been effected on him. It is nowhere recorded that the service has been effected on him. The petitioner was the applicant No.2 before the Joint Registrar. The order was passed ex parte without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. There-against the appeal was preferred before the Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal. The Tribunal, by impugned order dated 12.09.2001 (Annexure P-1) without going into the facts of the case held that the appeal was filed before the Joint Registrar, wherein under Section 80A of the Act, 1960, he was exercising concurrent power of the Registrar and, as such, no revision against the order passed by the Joint Registrar was maintainable before the Registrar/Additional Registrar. Thus, the order dated 10.04.2001 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Additional Registrar was held as a nullity without having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the order dated 10.04.2001 (Annexure P-4) was quashed. 4. Section 78 of the Act, 1960 provides for appeal from every original order under thus Act or the rules made thereunder. If such order is passed by any officer subordinate to Registrar, other than Additional Registrar or Joint Registrar, whether or not the Officer passing the order is invested with the powers of the Registrar, to the Registrar. If such order is passed by the Registrar, Additional Registrar or Joint Registrar, to the Tribunal Sub section 2 of Section 78, ibid, provides for second appeal to the Tribunal on the ground namely that the order is contrary to law; or that the order has failed to determine some material issue of law; or that there has been a substantial error or defect in the procedure as prescribed by this Act which may have produced error or defect in the decision of the case upon merits. Sub section 3 of Section 78 deals with the limitation and procedure for presenting the appeal. 5. Sub section 3 of Section 78 deals with the limitation and procedure for presenting the appeal. 5. Section 79 of the Act, 1960, which is a non-obstinate clause provides for no appeal or revision in certain cases, i.e. in case of order for winding up of a co-operative bank is made; or a scheme of compromise or arrangement or of reconstruction or re-organization or amalgamation is made or is given effect to; or an order for the suppression or suspension of the Board of Directors by whatever name called of a Co-operative Bank and the appointment of an Administrator therefore, has been made; and such order without sanction or requisition of the Reserve Bank of India shall not be liable to be called in question. 6. In Chhattisgarh, new provision of Sections 77 to 80F were introduced by amendment namely Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, (No.20), 2003 w.e.f. 09.09.2003 thereunder, the appeal is provided under Section 77, revision is provided Under Section 78. Likewise, other provisions were amended. 7. Under Section 78 of the Amended Act, applicable to the state of Chhattisgarh, revision may be considered by the State Government or the Registrar on its/his own motion or on the application made by any party for the purpose of satisfying itself/himself as to the legality or propriety of the orders passed in reference thereto any enquiry or proceedings or any order passed by any officer subordinate to it/him; any proceedings or decision or resolution or any order passed by the society or committee or sub-committee of society etc. not against the order passed by the Additional Registrar. 8. Section 80A of the old Act, which was introduced w.e.f. 07.08.1999 provides that the Registrar, may at any time on his own motion or on the application made by any party, call for and examine the record of any enquiry or the proceedings by any subordinate officer or a decision of a Board of Directors of a society for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed and as to the regularity of the proceedings of such officer or Board of Directors. If in any case, it appears to the Registrar that any decision or order or proceedings so called for should be modified, annulled or reversed, the Registrar, may pass such order thereon, after affording opportunity of being heard to the parties. If in any case, it appears to the Registrar that any decision or order or proceedings so called for should be modified, annulled or reversed, the Registrar, may pass such order thereon, after affording opportunity of being heard to the parties. 9. In the instant case, the revision was not entertained against any proceeding or as afore-stated passed by the subordinate officer or a decision of a Board of Directors of the Committee, but the order passed in appeal by the Joint Registrar. Thus, indisputably, no revision was maintainable against the order passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies. As a sequel, the impugned order cannot be held as arbitrary, unreasonable or illegal. 10. Reliance of the learned counsel for Ms. Khare on Shalini Shyam Shetti & Others Vs. Rajendra Shankar Pati 2010(8) SCC 329 and also Bhiwani Central Cooperative Bank Limited Haryalla Vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies Haryana & Anr. JT 2001 (Suppl. 1) SC 30 are not relevant to the facts of the case, as petition under Article 227 of the Constitution does not stand at par with the statutory revision provided under other enactment. 11. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order dated 12.09.2001 (Annexure P-1) is just, proper and legal, warranting no interference. Thus, there is no merit in the case. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition Dismissed.