The Court established that recovery proceedings under Section 154B-29 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act are distinct from disputes under Section 92, and thus the limitation period defined in Section 92 does not apply.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BORKAR, J.

1. By the present writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner calls in question the judgment and order passed in Revision Application No. 93 of 2024. By the said order, the Revisional Authority has remanded the proceedings to the District Deputy Registrar for a fresh decision under Section 154B-29 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are not in dispute. On 24 September 2021, Respondent No. 3 instituted Recovery Application No. 703 of 2021 before Respondent No. 2, claiming an amount of Rs. 3,12,045/- from the petitioner. The petitioner filed his reply and opposed the claim on the ground of limitation. He specifically contended that the recovery sought was barred by law and could not be enforced. By judgment and order dated 23 March 2023, Respondent No. 2 dismissed the recovery application. The dismissal was founded on the finding that the statement of account produced by Respondent No. 3 was not maintained on a month-wise basis and that certain charges were not reflected in the account extract. It was further held that there was non-compliance with Rules 86(a) to 86(e) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961. On this ground, the recovery application came to be rejected.

3. Aggrieved by the said decision, Respondent No. 3 preferred Revision Application No. 93 of 2024. By the impugned order, the Divisional Joint Registrar remanded the proceedings to Respondent No. 2. The revisional authority recorded a finding that the account extract furnished by Respondent No. 3 for the period from 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2021 was in conformity with Rules 86(a) to 86(e) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules. It was further observed that the petitioner had not furnished specific particulars to demonstrate as to how the said rules were not complied with by the society. On this reasoning, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. This order of remand is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

4. Mr. Naphade, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the dues sought to be recovered under Section 154B-29 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act pertain to a period commencing from the year 2011. He invited attention to Section 92 (2) of the Act, which prescribes the period of limitation in respect of disputes other than those covered by clauses (a) to (d) of . According to him, such disputes are governed by the provisions of the Limitation Act, as if the disputes were a civil suit and the Co-operative Court were a Civil Court. He, therefore, urged that the claim of the society is clearly barred by limitation. On this premise, it was submitted that the order remanding the proceedings is unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5. In order to appreciate the said submission, it becomes necessary to advert to the provisions of Section 92 and Section 154 -B-29 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, which read as follows. :-

Section 92 . Limitation.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in [the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963)], but subject to the specific provisions made in this Act, the period of limitation in the case of a dispute referred to [the Cooperative Court] under the last preceding Section shall—

(a) when the dispute relates to the recovery of any sum, including interest thereon, due to a society by a member thereof be computed from the date on which such memb