The Tribunal constituted under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, has no jurisdiction to condone delay in filing appeals as the Limitation Act, 1963, is specifically excluded by section 136(2) of the Act.

Altamas Kabir, J.

The two Revisional Applications, being C.O. Nos. 4 and 5 of 2001, which were being heard by the learned Single Judge in his revisional jurisdiction, were referred to the Division Bench for the purpose of deciding the question posed by the learned Judge as to whether the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, can condone the delay in preferring an appeal if presented beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under the Act. Since the very same question was also involved in C.O. No. 971 of 2000, the same was also referred to this Bench for hearing along with C.O. Nos. 4 and 5 of 2001.

2. The facts pertaining to C.O. Nos. 4 and 5 of 2001 briefly stated are that the Opposite Party No.1, Vidyasagar Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., gave a loan to the petitioners for business purposes and since the petitioners failed to pay the bank dues, the Opposite Party No.1 filed a Dispute Case before the learned Arbitrator under the provisions of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, hereinafter referred to as the "said Act". The learned Arbitrator passed an award on 21st September, 1999, with a direction upon the petitioner to pay the principal amount as well as interest at the rate of per cent per annum.

3. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Arbitrator the petitioners preferred appeals before the West Bengal Co-operative Tribunal along with applications for condonation of the delay in filing the appeals.

4. After considering the explanation given on behalf of the petitioners for the delay in filing the appeals, the learned Tribunal was of the view that such explanation was not satisfactory and accordingly by its order dated 14th November, 2000, dismissed the applications for condonation of the delay in filing the appeals. Consequently, the appeals as preferred, being unregistered Appeal Nos. 46 and 47 of 1999, were also dismissed.

5. Aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Tribunal the petitioners, Anupam Maity & Ors., and Nirmal Das & Ors., filed two separate revisional applications in this court under Article 227 of the Constitution, being C.O. Nos. 4 and 5 of 2001. As indicated hereinbefore, the said two revisional applications came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge who took up the matters for hearing analogously, as common questions of law were involved therein.

6. As will appear from the order of the learned Single Judge, a preliminary objection was taken by Mr. Bhattacharya, appearing on behalf of the respondent bank as regards the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain applications for condonation of delay in preferring such appeals. Relying upon the provisions of section 136(2) of the aforesaid Act, Mr. Bhattacharya contended that the Tribunal had no authority to entertain an application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, inasmuch as, section 136(2) of the said Act expressly prohibits application of the entire Limitation Act, 1963, to appeals preferred under sub-section (1). According to Mr. Bhattacharya, the Tribunal ought not to have entertained the application for condonation of delay and should have rejected the same as being not maintainable without entering into the merits of the said applications. It was Mr. Bhattacharya's contention that the Court was hot required to examine the propriety of the order rejecting the applications for condonation of delay on merit but that it should dismiss the applications upon holding that the Tribunal had, in fact, no jurisdiction to entertain such applications for condonation of the delay.

7. Opposing Mr. Bhattacharya's submissions, Mr. Bhunia, who appeared in support of the revisional applications, relied upon a Single Bench decision of this Court in the case of Nowda Thana Co-operative Agricultural Marketing Society vs. West Bengal Co-operative Tribunal & Ors., reported in 1979(2) CHN page 487, wherein while interpreting section 134(2) of the 1973 Act, which is similar to