IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal approach in condoning delay to provide substantial justice to the parties, as emphasized by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

ORDER :

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 08.05.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Hon’ble Minister In-charge of Co-operative Department, State of Chhattisgarh at Raipur in Revision Case No.78/29/2011, whereby the order dated 02.09.2011 passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies in Second Appeal No.77(2)(1)12/2010 dismissing the appeal on the point of limitation, has been affirmed.

2. From perusal of the record, it appears that Respondent No.1-Dr. P.S. Soan initiated the proceedings as per the provision prescribed under Section 64 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1960”) by submitting inter-alia that his father, who was the member of the petitioner’s society, namely, Samta Griha Nirmaan Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Raipur, died in February, 1972 and thereafter his rights and shares were transferred to him and, thereafter the Plot No. D-15 was allotted to him by the competent authority of the society on 22/06/1992. Further contention of the Respondent No.1 was that after the alleged allotment, the symbolic possession of it was handed over to him, but the registered deed of sale was not executed in his favour, therefore, he has been constrained to initiate the proceedings under the said provision of the Act, 1960 before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Raipur seeking issuance of direction against the society for execution of the registered deed of sale in his favour with regard to the plot in question, i.e. Plot No. D-15 and, praying further for issuance of injunction against the Respondent No. 2-Shri Narayan Das Daga from interfering in his peaceful possession.

3. The aforesaid claim was denied by the petitioner and after considering the claim, it was dismissed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Raipur vide its order dated 05.01.2001 (Annexure P-4) passed in Case No. 64-117/1994-95, on finding that since the alleged order of allotment dated on 22.06.1992, is passed by an incompetent authority in contrary to the circular No. 465 dated 26.06.1989 issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhopal (M.P.), therefore, it cannot be sustained and, accordingly, the claim of the said respondent was dismissed.

4. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, an appeal, being Appeal No. 78-05/R/2001, was preferred by the Respondent No.1 before the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies under Section 78 of the Act, 1960, who in turn, vide its order dated 29.01.2003 (Annexure P-6) has allowed the same by holding inter-alia that the plot in question was in fact allotted by the prescribed authority in compliance of the resolution dated 18.06.1992, which was passed by the Managing Committee of the Society, therefore, it cannot be said that it was passed by an incompetent authority. In consequence, the claim of the respondent No. 1 was allowed.

5. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, a petition, being Writ Petition(227) No.1892 of 2010, was filed by the petitioner before this Court and vide order dated 26.04.2010, it was withdrawn with liberty to avail the alternative remedy as provided under the Act, 1960. It appears that an application for obtaining the certified copy of the same was made on 29.04.2010 and in pursuance thereof, it was prepared on 01.05.2010, and after obtaining the copy of the same on 04.05.2010, a Second Appeal was preferred by the petitioner under Section 77(2) of the Act, 1960 before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Raipur on 07.05.2010, along with an application for condonation of its delay under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. It was stated by the petitioner therein that after passing of the order by the Joint Registrar on 29.01.2003 in appeal preferred by the respondent No. 1, a negotiation was going on between the parties on several occasions for amicable settlement of their disputes, but it could not be materialized. The explanation so offered was denied by