ORDER :

1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 06.09.2022 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Co-operative Tribunal, Bilaspur allowing appeal filed by respondent No.1.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 has preferred an appeal before the Chhattisgarh State Co-operative Tribunal challenging the order dated 27.04.2022 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajnandgaon. Along with appeal, respondent No.1 has also filed application for condonation of delay in filing appeal as also an application for grant of stay. Appeal was filed on 02.09.2022 and after verifying the documents and other requirements in the appeal, it was registered. Appeal was fixed on 06.09.2022 for considering application (IA No.1) filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and application (IA No.2) for grant of stay. When the appeal was taken up for hearing on 06.09.2022, the Cooperative Tribunal instead of deciding application for condonation of delay for which the case was fixed for hearing, has finally decided the appeal itself without issuing notice to respondents therein. He submits that the Court will not get jurisdiction to give its findings on merits of an appeal, unless the delay in filing appeal is condoned. As such, the order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the procedure prescribed in law and therefore, it is liable to be set aside.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 supported the order passed by Co-operative Tribunal and submitted that it is passed considering entirety of facts and circumstances of the case. However, he does not dispute the proceeding recorded by the Tribunal vide order dated 02.09.2022, fixing the matter on 6.9.2022 for hearing on application for condonation of delay and application for grant of stay.

4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition.

5. Annexure P-1 is the complete proceedings of appeal decided by the Tribunal. The proceeding recorded on 02.09.2022 would show that the appeal submitted by respondent No.1 was accepted and it was fixed for 06.09.2022 for hearing on two applications filed along with memo of appeal, one for condonation of delay in preferring appeal and another for grant of stay. The order dated 06.09.2022 would show that the Tribunal recorded that the case is listed for consideration on the application for condonation of delay as also application for grant of stay, but in the entire order there is no whisper about the consideration on aforementioned two applications and the Tribunal proceeded to consider the appeal on merits and decided the same finally that too without issuing notice to respondents therein.

6. It is now well settled that when there is delay in filing of suit, appeal or revision petition and application was filed for condoning the delay, the application for condonation of delay has to be decided at the first instance and only if the delay is condoned. The appeal or revision can be disposed of on merits. Appeal or revision cannot be disposed of without giving any finding on application for condonation of delay as the appellate authority or revisional Authority will get jurisdiction to decide the appeal or revision on merits only after the delay is condoned. Issue of limitation goes to root of the case.

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of West Bengal and others v. Somdeb Bandyopadhyay and others, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 694 observed thus:-

“7. It is to be noticed that even without condoning the delay and entertaining the writ appeal the High Court has passed a series of interim orders. Such a course is impermissible as the appeal was non est in the eye of the law without it being entertained. Admittedly, the delay in preferring the writ appeal was not condoned at the time when the interim orders were passed. The High Court has committed another error in holding that the writ petition was dismissed principally on the ground that it was the decision of the governin