2025:HHC:1062 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.417 of 2025 Date of Decision: 05.01.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Dilbagh Singh ……...Petitioner Versus The Talai, G.S.Cooperative Society Ltd. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Yuyutsu Singh Thakur & Mr. Munish Kumar, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, whereby appeal having been filed by the petitioner under Section 93 (1) of HP Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 (hereinafter “Act”), laying therein challenge to award dated 21.08.2023 passed by the Arbitrator, came to be dismissed, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid order. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Yuyutsu 2025:HHC:1062 Singh Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that once the petitioner had filed an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act alongwith appeal under Section 93 (1) of the Act, which is admittedly barred by limitation, Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, could not have straightaway dismissed the appeal on the ground that same was not filed within prescribed period of limitation, rather in that eventuality, he was under obligation to dispose of the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act at first instance. 3. Having perused order dated 03.09.2024 passed by Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, this Court finds that appeal filed by the petitioner herein came to be rejected on the ground of limitation, but there is no mention, if any, with regard to application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of Limitation Act, thereby explaining delay in filing appeal under relevant provision of law, laying therein challenge to award passed by Arbitrator. 4. Petitioner herein has placed on record copy of appeal as well as application having been filed by him under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay. 5. Though Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, attempted to argue that application under Section 5 of Limitation Act 2 2025:HHC:1062 was not filed along with the appeal under Section 93 (1) of the Act, but having perused both, appeal as well as application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, especially date of attestation, this Court finds that same were filed together. If it is so, authority below, before returning the appeal ought to have decided application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. 6. Bare perusal of impugned order dated 03.09.2024 nowhere suggests consideration of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of Limitation Act, rather authority concerned, having taken note of the fact that appeal came to be filed beyond specified period of limitation, proceeded to dismiss the same. In the event of filing of an application for condonation of delay, authority below, before passing appropriate orders on appeal, was required to dispose of the application, which subsequently could be dismissed either for want of sufficient explanation on record qua the condonation of delay or on account of maintainability of the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act in the proceedings before Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies. However, in the instant case, both the eventualities, as taken note hereinabove, have not been dealt, as such, impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 7. Consequently, in view of above, present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 3.9.2024 (Annexure P-2) is quashed 3 2025:HHC:1062 and set aside. Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Bilaspur is directed to take on record the appeal alongwith application for condonation of delay and, at the first instance, decide application for condonation of delay, by way of a speaking order, within a period of six weeks, from the date of submission of the memorandum of appeal alongwith application for condonation of delay, after registering the same. Since, the original appeal has been returned to the petitioner alongwith application for condonation of delay, petitioner is permitted to submit the same again to the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, enabling said authority to the needful in terms of this order. Learned counsel for the parties undertake to appear before authority below, on 15.1.2025, with original appeal. However, till the expiry of six weeks, in the event of petitioner re-submitting the appeal and application on 15.1.2025, award dated 21.8.2023 passed by learned Arbitrator shall be not executed. After expiry of six weeks, the award shall abide by the decision which may be taken by the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies on the delay application and, in the event of allowing the same, decision of the appeal or the application for stay of award, if any filed and allowed. January 06, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 4