IMPORTANT POINT
The acceptability of the explanation for delay is the primary criterion in the condonation of delay, and the length of delay is not decisive. The court should not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the lower court unless it was wholly untenable, arbitrary, or perverse.

ORDER :

1. By virtue of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 04.06.2013 passed by the Hon’ble Minister In-Charge of Co-Operative Department, State of Chhattisgarh at Raipur in Revision Case No.78/03/2012, whereby, the order passed by the Additional Registrar on 17.08.2011 condoning the delay in filing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of Joint Registrar, Co-Operative Societies dated 26.07.2004, has been set-aside.

2. From perusal of the record, it appears that one Gopichand Jaisinghani (since deceased, now represented by his legal representatives) initiated a proceeding as required under Section 64 of the Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1960’) before the Deputy Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Raipur, by submitting, inter alia, that the land of his mother, who became the member of the petitioner-Society, admeasuring 7912 sq.ft. was acquired on condition that the land will be allotted for land. It was alleged in the claim that 4 plots were promised to be given, but only 2 plots of 1000 sq.ft. each have been allotted so far and, with this plea, a claim was made before the said authority while invoking the provision prescribed under Section 64 of the Act, 1960.

3. The aforesaid claim was denied by the petitioner and after considering the claim, the said authority, i.e. Deputy Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, vide its order dated 23.04.2002 (Annexure P-3), has allowed the same and directed that the land be allotted in a specified area to the petitioner and, the appeal preferred there against by the petitioner was dismissed by the Joint Registrar, Co-Operative Societies vide its order dated 26.07.2004 (Annexure P-5). Being dissatisfied with the said order, a Petition, being Writ Petition(227) (PR) No.2577 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner before this Court and during its pendency, it was withdrawn on 22.10.2010 with a liberty to approach the statutory appellate forum as provided under the Act, 1960 and thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Additional Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Raipur, along with an application for condonation of delay as required under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and after considering the explanation offered therein and the reply as filed by the Respondent No.1, it was allowed by the Additional Registrar, Co-Operative Societies vide its order dated 17.08.2011 and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was, accordingly, directed to be fixed for its hearing. However, being aggrieved with the said order, a revision was preferred by the Respondent No.1 before the Co-Operative Societies, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, who in turn, vide its order impugned dated 04.06.2013 has allowed the same, and, consequently, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the petitioner before the Additional Registrar, Co-Operative Societies was rejected, and being aggrieved, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner.

4. Shri Raja Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Additional Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Raipur, while exercising its discretionary power, has condoned the delay in filing the said appeal, which was preferred against the order dated 26.07.2004 passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, and, since the discretionary power has been exercised by the Additional Registrar vide its order dated 17.08.2011 while condoning the delay, therefore, it ought not to have been interfered in the revisional jurisdiction. In support, he placed his reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) Through Legal Representatives And Others Vs. Union of India And Another, reported in (2023) 10 SCC 531.

5. No one appears on behalf of Respondents No. 1(a) to 1(c), though notice was duly served upon them.

6. From perusal of the record, it appears that t