( 1. ) BY way of this intra-court appeal under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant original petitioner has challenged the Order dated 21.9.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.1137 of 2010 dismissing the petition by confirming the order passed by the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal in Misc. Application No.513 of 2006 whereby the Tribunal dismissed the said application of the appellant petitioner for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 18.03.1999 passed by the Board of Nominees in Arbitration Suit No.449 of 1992 wherein he was one of the defendants.

( 2. ) THE brief facts of the care are as under:

That the respondent No.1-Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank Limited filed an Arbitration Suit No.449 of 1992 before the Registrar, Board of Nominees, Ahmedabad, under Section-96 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, praying for a decree for recovery of an amount of Rs. 9,97,493.85ps with running interest at the rate of 20.75% from 1.3.1992 till realization in which the present appellant petitioner was defendant No.5. It was the case of the Bank that the original defendants No.2 to 4 were the partners of defendant No.1 who had obtained the loan from the Bank for their business. THE present appellant along with defendant No.6 stood as guarantors in the said transaction. Pursuant to the summons issued by the Board of Nominees, all the defendants appeared through their Advocates. Appellant petitioner also engaged his Advocate to defend the suit. Though the appellant petitioner appeared through his Lawyer, did not file his written statement. THE Board of Nominees proceeded with the suit and, ultimately, decreed the same by judgment and award dated 18.3.1999 by which all the defendants were held liable to pay an amount of Rs. 9,97,493.85ps with running interest at the rate of 16.5% from 1.3.1992 till realization and also imposed cost of Rs. 5,000/- on all the defendants.

It appears from the judgment and decree that the appellant-petitioner (original defendant No.5) neither filed his written statement nor cross-examined the witnesses who were examined by the Board of Nominees. THE suit was defended by the original defendants No. 1 to 4 only.

( 3. ) THE said judgment and order dated 18.3.1999 passed in Arbitration Suit No.449 of 1992 was challenged by the present appellant by way of filing an appeal in the year 2006 before the Tribunal. Since there was a delay in preferring the appeal,the appellant petitioner also preferred a Misc. Application No. 513 of 2006 praying for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. THE Tribunal dismissed the said application by a reasoned order dated 6.5.2009. THE said decision of the Tribunal was challenged by the appellant petitioner before the learned Single Judge by way of captioned Special Civil Application which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 21.7.2010, which is impugned in the present appeal.

( 4. ) THE main contention raised by Mr. N.M. Kapadia, learned Advocate for the appellant is that the Board of Nominees has not followed the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961 and more particularly Rule 41(4), (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short) and, therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay in preferring the Appeal since the appellant had no knowledge of judgment and award and he came to know about the same only when he was served with the notice issued under Section 200 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and ought to have quashed and set aside the set aside the judgment and decree dated 18.3.1999 passed by the learned Board of Nominees in Arbitration Case No. 449 of 1992 and ought to have decided the appeal on merits.

( 5. ) THE learned Advocate Mr. Kapadia for the appellant has contended that when the judgment and decree was passed/ pronounced by the Board of Nominees in the year 1999, the appellant was not present before th