1 2026:HHC:18989 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.4913, 4196, 4197, 4198 & 4323/2026 Decided on: 21.05.2026. 1. CWP No. 4913/2026 The Talai Gram Sewa Co-operative Society Ltd. …..Petitioner Versus Vinod Kumar and others ..Respondents 2. CWP No. 4196/2026 The Talai Gram Sewa Co-operative Society Ltd. …..Petitioner Versus Vinod Kumar and others ..Respondents 3. CWP No. 4197/2026 The Talai Gram Sewa Co-operative Society Ltd. …..Petitioner Versus Vinod Kumar and others ..Respondents 4. CWP No. 4198/2026 The Talai Gram Sewa Co-operative Society Ltd. …..Petitioner Versus Vinod Kumar and others ..Respondents 5. CWP No. 4323/2026 The Talai Gram Sewa Co-operative Society Ltd. …..Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kumar and others ..Respondents 2 2026:HHC:18989 Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Amardeep Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Yuyutsu Singh Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3 in all petitions except CWP No. 4323/2026. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 4 & 5 in all petitions. Respondents No.1 to 3 proceeded against ex parte in CWP No.4323/2026. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record report qua dasti notice having been served upon respondents No. 1 to 3 in CWP No. 4323/2026. Despite service, these respondents are not represented. Hence, proceeded against ex-parte in CWP No. 4323/2026. All these writ petitions arise out of almost similar impugned orders, involve similar question of law, hence, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, have been taken up together for adjudication. In view of the issue involved in these writ petitions and the settled legal position, there is no 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 3 2026:HHC:18989 necessity to call for reply of respondents No. 4 & 5. Despite opportunity granted to respondents No. 1 to 3, reply has not been filed by them. All matters have accordingly been heard at this stage. 2. Petitioner feels aggrieved against dismissal of its appeals preferred under Sections 93(2)(C) of H.P. Co- operative Societies Act, 1968 (in short, the Act) by respondent No.4- the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P.. The petitioner society had preferred appeals under Section 93(2)(C) of the Act against decisions rendered under Section 72 of the Act. The appeals were preferred beyond prescribed period of limitation. Alongwith appeals, the petitioner had moved applications under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condoning the delay. Respondent No.4 vide his impugned orders held that limitation period for filing the appeals had expired; There was no authority vested in it for considering the applications filed under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act; The said Act had no application to the appeals preferred under Section 93(2) (c) of the Act. Accordingly, the applications for condoning the delay were rejected. Consequently, appeals were also dismissed. 4 2026:HHC:18989 3. The reasoning assigned by respondent No.4 in the impugned orders is not in consonance with law. In Jogindera Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. versus Addl. Registrar (Mon.) Co-operative Societies & Others,2 it was held that provisions of Limitation Act in terms of Section 49 of the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act of 1968 are excluded in its applicability to the proceedings taken under Sections 69, 73 and 88 of the Act and are not applicable to all other provisions of the Act including Sections 93, 94 etc. Relevant para from the judgment is as under:- “18. In view of aforesaid discussions and for the reasons stated hereinabove, findings regarding non-applicability of the provisions of Limitation Act including Section 5 thereof to the proceedings conducted under the Act of 1968 more particularly Section 93 and Rules framed thereunder are perverse and accordingly set aside and it is specially held that the provisions of the Limitation Act in terms of Section 49 of the Act of 1968 are excluded to its applicability to proceedings taken under Sections 69, 73 and 88 of the Act of 1968 and are not applicable to all other provisions of the Act of 1968 including Sections 93, 94 etc. The questions of law is answered accordingly.” 4. In view of above, these writ petitions are allowed and impugned orders passed by respondent No.4 in all these writ petitions are set-aside. All these matters are remanded to respondent No.4 for considering the 2CMPMO No.361/2024, decided on 19.05.2025, a/w connected matters. 5 2026:HHC:18989 applications moved by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on their own merits. Parties are directed to appear before respondent No.4 on 10.06.2026. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 21, 2026 Judge yogesh