JUDGMENT : Ramesh Kumar Wattal, Member (Judicial) The instant Revision Petition has been instituted on the grounds that the Respondent No.1 filed a petition under section 70 and 72 of J&K Cooperative Societies Act, 1989 and the petitioner filed reply to the same and raised objections regarding the maintainability of the same by raising the objection that the petition is barred by provisions of Section 11 of CPC regarding the same subject matter, the Respondent No.1 also filed recovery proceedings against the petitioner before Tehsildar, Jammu. 2. The matter asked for adjudication on merits regarding the maintainability of the petition filed by Respondent No.1 and also required adjudication on the facts that were disputed by the Petitioner in its reply submitted before the Respondent No.2. 3. The Respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order simply by stating that the petitioner is not interest in contesting the petition and has ordered that the petition filed by Respondent No. 1 is allowed and has ordered recovery of the amount. 4. The Petitioner submits that order impugned is without any application of mind and has no expression given as there is no reason given. The minimum that was expected of Respondent No.2 was that some reasoning should have been given, but Respondent No.2 has given no reasoning and has passed an illegal order which has absolutely no reasoning given and hence deserves to be set-aside, as being bad in the eyes of law. 5. The Petitioner further submits that any order passed by any authority is supposed to have some reasons and reasons can be given only if there is application of mind and mind can be disclosed only by giving reasons and reasons are to be written. In the impugned order no reason is given which clearly depicts that there has been absolutely no application of mind and hence the order is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. 6. A prayer has been made by the petitioner that impugned order passed by the Respondent No.2 be set-aside, as the same is perverse and has been passed without any application of mind. 7. I have perused the grounds of the revision petition and have gone through the record and have also heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Parties at length. 8. 7. I have perused the grounds of the revision petition and have gone through the record and have also heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Parties at length. 8. Petitioner's counsel while reiterating the grounds raised in the revision petition has urged before the Court that the respondent had given the order for recovery of the amount to the Tehsildar where the Petitioner made the payment and the petitioner in the proceedings before the court below also submitted that once the remedy had be availed by the respondent before a forum, Arbitration proceedings could not continue. He has also submitted that an affidavit has also been procured regarding the loan adjustment. 9. Besides, the respondent Registrar has not applied his mind to the grounds urged by the petitioner and passed the order which suffers for want of non-application of mind. 10. He has also submitted that the arbitration proceedings were time barred and the order impugned could not be passed which suffers from an illegality and wrong exercise of jurisdiction, as such the same should be set-aside. 11. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the order is validly passed. There no illegality. The Petitioner has not discharged the liability of loan despite availing a number of opportunities. The amount involved is public money. The grounds of revision are vague and ambiguous, and not worth to be accepted, as such the petition be dismissed. 12. So far as the facts of the case are concerned, the petitioner is shown to have availed the loan facility of Rs. 15.90 lacs in the year 2002 repayable by the petitioner within 84 instalments while he has failed to repay and the court below in the arbitration proceedings of Bank under S72 of Cooperative Securities Act has ordered the recovery of the amount due along with interest total amounting to Rs.39,78,393/-calculated upto 30.06.2011 @ 14% interest. 13. 15.90 lacs in the year 2002 repayable by the petitioner within 84 instalments while he has failed to repay and the court below in the arbitration proceedings of Bank under S72 of Cooperative Securities Act has ordered the recovery of the amount due along with interest total amounting to Rs.39,78,393/-calculated upto 30.06.2011 @ 14% interest. 13. Though the petitioner has in his objections before the Court below submitted that he has availed the loan facility at the instance of the Manager of the concerned Bank who under undue influence procured documents for loan advance from him representing that the same shall be at meager nominal interest but this plea has neither been accepted by the court below nor seems to be plausible in view of the documentary evidence in support of availing of loan facility which is in the form of DP note "Loan Agreement, Letter of guarantee," etc. 14. Because under law no oral terms and conditions can be taken to be true as against the written conditions enumerated in the documents shown to have been validly executed nor the plea of oral assurance of availing loan facility at meager rate of interest can be tenable under law when the terms of grant of loan is as per the documents which have been executed and duly signed. 15. Another contention of the Petitioner is that the Bank had instituted the proceedings before the Tehsildar where some amount was deposited and no two remedies simultaneously could be availed. 16. In this regard a resort needs to be had to the recovery proceedings before the Collector/Tehsildar, the copies of the orders of which have been placed on record. 17. The communication dated 17.12.2009 addressed by the Bank to the Collector shows that the recovery proceedings had been initiated for speedy recovery of the overdue ;amount of loan under Land Revenue Act but no effective proceedings have been taken and the petitioner has deposited only a small amount in these proceedings that is why the recovery proceedings have been withdrawn from the Collector not on the ground that the repayment of the loan had been made by the Petitioner or the amount outstanding had been substantially or wholly recovered from the petitioner by the respondent Bank but because of the fact that the recovery proceedings through Tehsildar have not been found by the respondent Bank to be effective or fruitful. 18. 18. Thus the petitioner's ground that once one of the remedies had been resorted to by the respondent Bank, other recovery could not be resorted to by them, is therefore untenable under law which is does not merit acceptance particularly when substantially the amount in arrears was overdue and yet to be outstanding against the petitioner. 19. Lastly another main ground urged by the Petitioner is that the claim of the Bank was time barred and the same should have been dismissed. 20. So far as position of law in this regard is concerned the same is discussed as under. T.D. Kavi Rajan v. Kerala Co-Operative Tribunal And on 15 November, 1989 : Where the question arose as to when there is conflict between two decisions as to whether the provisions of limitation Act are applicable to the proceedings under cooperative societies Act the court observed as under: "It has become unnecessary for us to resolve this conflict as the conflict stands resolved by the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the decision Sakuru v. Tanaji, AIR 1985 SC 1279 . Dealing with this aspect of the matter, this is what the Supreme Court said in paragraph 3 of the judgment: 'After hearing both sides, we have unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that there is no substance in this appeal and that the view taken by the Division Bench in Venkaiah's case, AIR 1978 AP 166 , is perfectly correct and sound. It is well-settled by the decisions of this court in Town Municipal Council, Athani v. Presiding Officer [1970] 1 SCR 51, Nityanand M. Joshi v. Life Insurance Corporation of India [1970] 1 SCR 396 and Sushila Devi v. Ramanandan Prasad [1976] 2 SCR 845 that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, apply only to proceedings in "courts" and not to appeals or applications before bodies other than courts such as quasi-judicial Tribunals or executive authorities, notwithstanding the fact that such bodies or authorities may be vested with certain specified powers conferred on courts under the Code of Civil or Criminal Procedure. The Collector before whom the appeal was preferred by the appellant herein under Section 90 of the Act not being a court, the Limitation Act as such had no applicability to the proceedings before him. The Collector before whom the appeal was preferred by the appellant herein under Section 90 of the Act not being a court, the Limitation Act as such had no applicability to the proceedings before him. But even in such a situation, the relevant special statute may contain an express provision conferring on the appellate authority, such as the Collector, the power to extend the prescribed period of limitation on sufficient cause being shown by laying down that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall be applicable to such proceedings . . . ' Following the above decision, we have to hold that the Co-operative Tribunal is not a court and that, therefore, the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable. The pronouncement of this court to the contrary in Writ Appeal No. 312 of 1976 cannot, therefore, be regarded as good law." 21. It was ultimately held that It is, therefore, clear that what holds the field is the earlier decision of this court in Thilakan v. M. C. V. Cooperative Society Ltd. [ 1978 KLT 256 as the principle laid down in the said decision stands affirmed by the Supreme Court in Sahuru v. Tanaji, AIR 1985 SC 1279 . Hence the law stands clearly settled that the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. As that is the only question that arises for consideration in this case, for the reasons stated above, this writ petition is dismissed. 22. The same has also been held in famous case of Savitra Khandu Beradi v. Nagar Agricultural Sale and on 4 February, 1957 AIR 1957 Bom 178 where Bombay High Court held that provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable to S54 of Cooperative Societies Act and Cooperative Societies Act and Tribunal committed no error in allowing the claim of society by dismissing the plea of limitation. 23. Thus Cooperative Societies Act being a special statute and the Tribunal statutory and quasi-judicial authority being a creation of a statute, though with trappings of a court the law of limitation is not wholly applicable. 24. Thus the point of bar of limitation is not upheld. 25. Regarding the claim of the respondent against the petitioner during hearing of the case, the respondents representative has submitted that the loan of Rs. 24. Thus the point of bar of limitation is not upheld. 25. Regarding the claim of the respondent against the petitioner during hearing of the case, the respondents representative has submitted that the loan of Rs. 15.90 lacs was taken by the petitioner in the year 2002 and during-last 15 years tentatively only Rs.13.80 lacs has been deposited and not only the whole of interest but even the principal amount has not been shown to have been liquidated, this court in its revisional jurisdiction is not empowered to give any relief to the petitioner against the terms and conditions governing the parties regarding grant of loan on the basis of equitable principles alone. 26. The grounds taken in the revision petition are not therefore sustainable under law. 27. The result is that the revision petition is without any force and is as such dismissed but dismissal of this revision petition shall not operate as a bar to the respondent bank authorities from giving any benefit to the Petitioner in reduction of the outstanding amount of loan or interest as the case may be if the petitioner is otherwise found to be admissible to it under any scheme provided by the bank. 28. The Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. The revision file be consigned to records after due completion.