BHASKARAN NAIR Vs. CO OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL TRIVANDRUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this original petition is the son of one Velayudha Kurup who was the counter-petitioner in Arbitration Reference No. 57 of 1958 before the 2nd respondent-Deputy Registrar of Co-operative societies. THE grievance of the petitioner is against Ext. P1 order of the 1st respondent-Cooperative Tribunal, Trivandrum dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner, his late mother and three sisters. THE said revision was against an order of the 2nd respondent impleading the legal representatives of the deceased Velayudha Kurup. THE question that arises for consideration is whether an arbitrator under S. 70 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, for short the Act, has the power to implead the legal representatives and, if so, whether the legal representatives can be impleaded at any time after the death of the party.

(2.) THE petitioner's father, Velayudha Kurup, left this world on 20 61970 when Arbitration Reference No. 57 of 1958 was pending before the 2nd respondent. In March 1974 the 3rd respondent-Liquidator filed a petition for impleading the legal representatives of the deceased Velayudha kurup in the above Arbitration Reference. THE petitioner and the other legal representatives entered appearance and contended that they cannot be impleaded because no action to implead them was taken within three months from the date of death of Velayudha Kurup and hence the Arbitration Reference abated. But the 2nd respondent overruled the above objection and allowed the 3rd respondent's petition for impleading. Against the above order of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner and the other legal representatives of Velayudha Kurup filed a revision petition R. P. No. 19 of 1974 before the 1st respondent. THE 1st respondent by Ext. P1 order dated 13 91974 dismissed the above revision petition. THE petitioner challenges the above order, Ext. P1, in this original petition.

(3.) LEARNED Government Pleader contends that it is clear from S. 69, 77 and 98 of the Act that the legislature never intended to apply all the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and of the Limitation Act, 1963 to proceedings under the Act. The provisions of the above Central enactments are made applicable by S. 77 and 98 of the Act to the extent mentioned therein. LEARNED Government Pleader points out that the Registrar, arbitrator or other persons deciding disputes under the Act are not civil courts and are only domestic tribunals created by the Act. Hence, according to the learned Government Pleader, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure regulating impleading of the legal representatives in suits and appeals are not applicable to proceedings under the Act. In support of his contention, learned government Pleader relies on Jokkim Fernandez v. Amina Kunhi Umma (1973 KLT. 138 (F. B.) ) wherein it is said: "the Limitation Act 1963 applies only to courts and prescribes periods of limitation in respect of suits, appeals and applications filed only in courts. S. 18 of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is clear that the appellate authority constituted under it is not a court but only an authority persona designata. Even if the power under S. 5 of the Limitation act, 1963 were to be read into special or local law by reason of the provisions of S. 29 of the Limitation Act, that power is exercisable only by courts and not by tribunals or other authorities such as the appellate authority in this case. The provisions of S. 18 (1) (b) show that the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act. was meant to be a self-contained code in the matter of prescribing the periods of limitation and granting exemption therefrom. " LEARNED Government Pleader then refers to Thilakan v. M. C. V. Co-operative Society (1974 KLT. 657) wherein my learned brother subramonian Poti J. has said: "it is evident that the reference to arbitrations in s. 37 (1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 can only be read as reference to arbitration under the said Act. It is by virtue of S. 46 of the Arbitration Act that the provisions of the Arbitration Act are extended to other enactments relating to arbitration. That section particularly excludes S. 37 and therefore it is only the provisions other than S. 37 and certain other sections that would apply to other arbitrations. The provisions of the Limitation Act are applicable only to proceedings before a court and 'court' in that context refers to Tribunals the proceedings before which are governed by;the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure or in some cases of the Code of Criminal procedure. " LEARNED Government Pleader then contends that S. 69 and 70 of the Act give the Registrar the power to adjudicate claims made before him and this power should necessarily include the power to implead if pending proceedings a party dies. According to to the learned Government Pleader, if there is no power to implead in a case where the debtor dies pending proceedings, the creditor will not have any remedy. LEARNED Government Pleader also centends that unless the Act which is a special statute makes the provisions of the Limitation Act 1963 applicable to proceedings under the Act, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the provisions in the limitation Act which insist that the impleading of legal representatives should be within a specified time will apply.