ORDER : 1. By virtue of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 04.06.2013 passed by the Hon’ble Minister In-Charge of Co-Operative Department, State of Chhattisgarh at Raipur in Revision Case No.78/03/2012, whereby, the order passed by the Additional Registrar on 17.08.2011 condoning the delay in filing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of Joint Registrar, Co-Operative Societies dated 26.07.2004, has been set-aside. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that one Gopichand Jaisinghani (since deceased, now represented by his legal representatives) initiated a proceeding as required under Section 64 of the Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1960’) before the Deputy Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Raipur, by submitting, inter alia, that the land of his mother, who became the member of the petitioner-Society, admeasuring 7912 sq.ft. was acquired on condition that the land will be allotted for land. It was alleged in the claim that 4 plots were promised to be given, but only 2 plots of 1000 sq.ft. each have been allotted so far and, with this plea, a claim was made before the said authority while invoking the provision prescribed under Section 64 of the Act, 1960. 3. The aforesaid claim was denied by the petitioner and after considering the claim, the said authority, i.e. Deputy Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, vide its order dated 23.04.2002 (Annexure P-3), has allowed the same and directed that the land be allotted in a specified area to the petitioner and, the appeal preferred there against by the petitioner was dismissed by the Joint Registrar, Co-Operative Societies vide its order dated 26.07.2004 (Annexure P-5). Being dissatisfied with the said order, a Petition, being Writ Petition(227) (PR) No.2577 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner before this Court and during its pendency, it was withdrawn on 22.10.2010 with a liberty to approach the statutory appellate forum as provided under the Act, 1960 and thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Additional Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Raipur, along with an application for condonation of delay as required under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and after considering the explanation offered therein and the reply as filed by the Respondent No.1, it was allowed by the Additional Registrar, Co-Operative Societies vide its order dated 17.08.2011 and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was, accordingly, directed to be fixed for its hearing. However, being aggrieved with the said order, a revision was preferred by the Respondent No.1 before the Co-Operative Societies, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, who in turn, vide its order impugned dated 04.06.2013 has allowed the same, and, consequently, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the petitioner before the Additional Registrar, Co-Operative Societies was rejected, and being aggrieved, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. Shri Raja Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Additional Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Raipur, while exercising its discretionary power, has condoned the delay in filing the said appeal, which was preferred against the order dated 26.07.2004 passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, and, since the discretionary power has been exercised by the Additional Registrar vide its order dated 17.08.2011 while condoning the delay, therefore, it ought not to have been interfered in the revisional jurisdiction. In support, he placed his reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) Through Legal Representatives And Others Vs. Union of India And Another, reported in (2023) 10 SCC 531 . 5. No one appears on behalf of Respondents No. 1(a) to 1(c), though notice was duly served upon them. 6. From perusal of the record, it appears that the claim made by the Respondent No.1 under Section 64 of the Act, 1960 was allowed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-Operative Societies vide its order dated 23.04.2002 (Annexure P-3) and was found to be affirmed further by the Joint Registrar, Co-Operative Societies vide its order dated 26.07.2004 (Annexure P-5). 6. From perusal of the record, it appears that the claim made by the Respondent No.1 under Section 64 of the Act, 1960 was allowed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-Operative Societies vide its order dated 23.04.2002 (Annexure P-3) and was found to be affirmed further by the Joint Registrar, Co-Operative Societies vide its order dated 26.07.2004 (Annexure P-5). It appears that although the said order was questioned by the petitioner in writ before this Court, but after obtaining the permission to avail the alternative statutory remedy on 22.10.2010, an appeal was immediately preferred before the Additional Registrar, Co- Operative Societies, Raipur along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, by submitting, inter alia, that after passing of the said order by the Joint Registrar, the parties were trying to settle their dispute amicably, and because of that, the appeal could not be filed in time, though, there was no malafide intention behind the same. The explanation offered by the petitioner was denied by the Respondent No.1 by saying that the sufficient cause has not been explained properly by the petitioner while preferring the appeal. It, however, appears that after considering the explanation offered by the petitioner in preferring the said appeal, it was allowed by the Additional Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Raipur, vide its order dated 17.08.2011 while exercising its discretionary power in order to provide substantial justice to the parties and appeal was, thus, directed to be listed for its hearing. Under such circumstances and, particularly, when the delay in preferring the appeal has been condoned by the Additional Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Raipur while exercising its discretionary power, the revisional Court ought not to have reversed the same. 7. It is to be seen at this juncture, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123 , wherein it has been observed that the condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court and observed further that the length of delay is no matter as the acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion and once the Court accepts the explanation as sufficient, the superior Court normally should not disturb such findings, much less in the revisional jurisdiction unless, the discretion was exercised wholly on untenable ground. The relevant observations made therein at paragraphs 9, 10 and 12 read as under :- “9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in reversional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammelled by the conclusion of the lower court. 10. The reason for such a different stance is thus: The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time-limit fixed for approaching the court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. 12. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [ AIR 1969 SC 575 ] and State of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality [ AIR 1972 SC 749 ].” 8. Similar was the view taken by the Supreme Court recently, in the matter of Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) Through Legal Representatives And Others (supra), wherein, it has been held in this regard at para 33, as under :- “33. Similar was the view taken by the Supreme Court recently, in the matter of Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) Through Legal Representatives And Others (supra), wherein, it has been held in this regard at para 33, as under :- “33. Be that as it may, it is important to bear in mind that we are not hearing an application for condonation of delay but sitting in appeal over a discretionary order of the High Court granting the prayer for condonation of delay. In the case of the former, whether to condone or not would be the only question whereas in the latter, whether there has been proper exercise of discretion in favour of grant of the prayer for condonation would be the question. Law is fairly well-settled that “a court of appeal should not ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by the courts below”. If any authority is required, we can profitably refer to the decision in Manju Nath Anandappa v. Tammanasa, (2003) 10 SCC 390 , which in turn relied on the decision in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593 , where it has been held that : “an appellate power interferes not when the order appealed is not right but only when it is clearly wrong”. 9. In this case, the explanation for the delay in preferring the appeal before the Additional Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Raipur was found to be satisfactory by the said authority vide its order dated 17.08.2011 in exercise of its discretion and, revisional authority has, therefore, committed an illegality in upsetting the same in its revisional jurisdiction. 10. Consequently, the petition is allowed and, the order impugned dated 04.06.2013 passed by the Hon’ble Minister In-Charge of Co-Operative Department, State of Chhattisgarh at Raipur in Revision Case No.78/03/2012, is hereby set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the Additional Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Raipur with a direction to decide the said appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 26.07.2004 passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-Operative Societies in accordance with law. No order as to cost(s).