R ANAND KUMAR Vs. CO OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of the Co-operativeTribunal-V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in C.T.A. No. 3/88 allowing the appeal preferred by the fourth respondent setting aside the order of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing), Hyderabad (herein after called as the Arbitrator) in ARC No. 41/87-G dated 30-3-1988.

(2.) The petitioner's father was a member of the third respondent-society-JubliHills Co-operative House Building Society Limited, Hyderabad. After the death of his father the petitioner was admitted as a member; the Managing Committee of the society approved the membership of the petitioner on 14-12-82 A letter was received from the third respondent-society on 30-5-82 informing that lots would be drawn for purpose of allotting plots cf he use sites to the members of the society on 20-6-82. A sum of Rs. 3050/- which was required to be paid, according to the petitioner was paid and a receipt was obtained from the society. By a letter dated 6-7-82 the society informed the petitioner that plot No. 57 was provisionally allotted in the name of the pesitioner's father in the draw held on 20-6-82. The entire balance of the amount of Rs. 7,911.15 (inclusive of registration charges and stamp duty) was paid by the petitioner to the society on 28-11-82 and he has submitted an application with the necessary affidavits :

(3.) The limitation in respect of the applications filed under Sec. 61 isgoverned by sub-rule (2) of Rule 49 which lays down that the limitation : "shall be regulated by the provisions of the Limitation Act 1963 as if the dispute were a suit and the Registrar a civil court......" Article 54 of the Limitation Act lays down that for specific performance of a contract the period of three years limitation runs from, the date fixed for the performance or if no such date is fixed when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. The Arbitrator expressed the view that the period of limitation of three years starts from 1-9-83, the date on which the fourth respondent herein had acknowledged the receipt of the letter dated 8-8-83 marked as Ex. No. 1 and as the petition under Sec. 61(1) was filed on 6-10-87 the same was barred by limitation. The petition filed before the Arbitrator was not in accordance with the procedure incorporated in the Civil Rules of Practice in that the petition did not contain the signature of the party. An application was filed for permission to comply with the defect. The Arbitrator declined to grant the permission and held that the petition was not in conformity with Rule 26 of the Civil Rules of Practice.