JUDGMENT : Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. 1. A defendant in a dispute case under Section 102 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006 has filed the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment dated July 15, 2016 passed by the West Bengal Co-operative Tribunal in appeal no.09, 2016 as well as the order dated November 28, 2016 passed by the said Tribunal in Review Case No.3 of 2016 arising out of the aforesaid appeal. 2. The opposite party herein filed a dispute case under Section 102 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act before the Deputy Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, Hooghly Range, Chinsurah, Hooghly being Dispute Case no.9, 2014-15 against the petitioner herein. 3. In the said dispute case the opposite party herein prayed for the following reliefs: i. Holding that sum of Rs. 3,18,000/- is due from and payable by Sri Gobinda Chanda Manna, defendant hereinabove and ex-manager of the plaintiff society to the plaintiff society to the plaintiff society; ii. Directing the defendant hereinabove to pay the said sum of Rs. 3,18,000/- to the plaintiff society in such installments and within such time as your Honour may fix; iii. Directing that in the event of failure of the defendant to pay as per direction and order as at (ii) above, the plaintiff shall be competent and have the liberty to recover the said sum of money by attachment and sale of the landed properties and other properties of the defendant herein through court; and iv. Passing such other order or orders direction or directions as to your Honour may seem fit and proper. 4. The petitioner herein being the defendant contested the said dispute case by filing a written statement denying the allegation made in the dispute case. It was also contended by the defendant in the dispute case that the dispute case is barred by limitation. 5. The learned Arbitrator passed an award dated March 8, 2016 directing the defendant/petitioner herein to pay Rs. 3,18,000/- to the society by 10 postdated cheques. The defendant preferred an appeal under Section 147 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006 being no.9 of 2016 before the West Bengal Co-operative Tribunal challenging the said Award dated March 8, 2016. 5. The learned Arbitrator passed an award dated March 8, 2016 directing the defendant/petitioner herein to pay Rs. 3,18,000/- to the society by 10 postdated cheques. The defendant preferred an appeal under Section 147 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006 being no.9 of 2016 before the West Bengal Co-operative Tribunal challenging the said Award dated March 8, 2016. In course of hearing of the appeal before the learned Tribunal, the defendant/petitioner herein raised the point that the dispute case was hopelessly barred by limitation since the cause of action of the dispute case arose in the year 2004 and the dispute case was filed in the year 2015. The learned Tribunal by a judgment dated July 15, 2016 was, however, pleased to allow the appeal thereby setting aside the award dated March 8, 2016 and by sending the dispute case back to the Arbitrator on remand for disposal after hearing the parties to the dispute afresh. The learned Tribunal was, however, pleased not to accept the contention of the defendant that the dispute case is hopelessly barred by limitation. The learned Tribunal after going through the audit report available in the record of the dispute case held that it is not understandable as to how the auditor came to the conclusion that the erstwhile manager had misappropriated Rs. 3,18,000/-. The Learned Tribunal further held that without examination of the auditor it is difficult to come to a definite conclusion as regards misappropriation of Rs. 3,18,000/- by the defendant / appellant. The defendant filed an application for review before the learned Tribunal which gave rise to Review Case No.3 of 2016. The learned Tribunal while deciding the Review Case No.3 of 2016 was pleased to hold that there is no apparent mistake of any law and fact and accordingly dismissed the review application on contest by an order dated November 28, 2016. 6. Mr. Ashit Kr. Chakraborty learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Tribunal acted illegally and with material irregularity by holding that the dispute case is not barred by limitation. He further submitted that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in M/s. Egra Thana Co-operative Agricultural Marketing Society Limited and Others Vs. Mr. Ashit Kr. Chakraborty learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Tribunal acted illegally and with material irregularity by holding that the dispute case is not barred by limitation. He further submitted that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in M/s. Egra Thana Co-operative Agricultural Marketing Society Limited and Others Vs. Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Others reported in, 2003 (1) WbLR 488 (Cal) is not applicable in the facts of the instant case since the said decision deals with the question as to whether the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act can be invoked in respect of a proceeding before Co-operative Tribunal. In the said judgment it was held that the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked in respect of a proceeding before the learned Co-operative Tribunal and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone delay in filing of an appeal. In the instant case the issue is as to whether the dispute case is barred by limitation or not and not as to whether the Tribunal has power to condone delay in the filing of an appeal. Thus, the said judgment has no manner of application to the facts of the instant case. The learned advocate for the defendants/ petitioner herein further submitted that the Arbitrator illegally passed an award against the defendant for payment of Rs. 3,18,000/- only without ascertaining the genuineness of such Audit Report. He further submitted that the report made by the auditor, cannot be considered as sacrosanct unless the auditor is examined and cross-examined. 7. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner further referred to the provisions of Section 52 of the said Act of 2006 in support of his contention that the dispute case which was filed in the year 2015 is barred by limitation since the cause of action admittedly arose in the year 2004. 8. The learned advocate for the petitioner also referred to a judgment reported at (National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Limited Vs. M/s. Ram Narayan Tech Chand, (1988) 1 CalHN 441) wherein it was held that it was within the contemplation of the legislators that the relevant provision of the Limitation Act would apply to all other possible cases to which were not appended any specific period of limitation. M/s. Ram Narayan Tech Chand, (1988) 1 CalHN 441) wherein it was held that it was within the contemplation of the legislators that the relevant provision of the Limitation Act would apply to all other possible cases to which were not appended any specific period of limitation. It was further held that a dispute relating to the recovery of money from a Co-operative Society is obviously such a case and it may be safely concluded that such a case would attract the relevant provision of the Act. 9. The facts of the instant case is different from the aforesaid reported judgment in as much as in the instant case the society filed the dispute case praying for recovery of money from the paid manager of the society and as such the said reported decision is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. 10. The learned Tribunal while deciding the appeal held that the cause of action of the dispute case admittedly arose in the year 2004. The learned Tribunal further referred to the provision of Section 102(2) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006 while rejecting the contention of the defendant that the dispute case is hopelessly barred by limitation. 11. Section 102(2) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006 provides that any dispute mentioned in Sub-section 1 other than a dispute relating to recovery of money shall be filed before the Registrar within 3 months from the date on which the cause of action arise. Since the instant dispute case has been filed by a society for recovery of money, the provisions of Sub-section 2 of Section 102 of the said Act cannot be applied for deciding the issue as to whether the dispute case is barred by limitation or not. 12. The learned Tribunal while deciding the Review Case held that Section 52 of the Act includes the dispute of recovery of money in certain contingencies unlike the contingency of the present case. The finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to the issue of limitation in the judgment dated July 15, 2016 is without any basis and the same is set aside. 13. The finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to the issue of limitation in the judgment dated July 15, 2016 is without any basis and the same is set aside. 13. Section 52 of the said Act of 2006 provided for the starting point of limitation for the institution of a suit to recover any sum (including interest thereon) due to a Co-operative Society by a member thereof or any person having transaction with the Co-operative Society. Section 52 does not lay down the period of limitation in case of a dispute relating to recovery of money by a co-operative society from its employee. 14. Since the issue as to whether the dispute case is barred by limitation or not is a mixed question of law and fact and the same goes to the root of the matter, the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies is directed to decide the dispute case No.9 of 2014-15 afresh including the point of limitation after hearing the parties to the dispute afresh. The application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is disposed of by modifying the orders impugned to the extent as indicated above. The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies of Hooghly Range is directed to dispose of the Dispute Case as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of the communication of this order without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either parties. There shall be no order as to costs.