The present petition is directed against judgment and order dated 10th January, 2014, passed by the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal in Revision Application No. 107 of 2013, which confirmed the order dated 28th October, 2013, below Exh. 21 application passed by the Board of Nominees, Vadodara, in Summary Lavad Case No. 306 of 2012.

2. By impugned orders, the prayer of the petitioner herein to condone the delay in filing leave to defend application was refused. The delay of 86 days was not condoned as the Tribunal took the view that time limit prescribed for the purpose in Rule 41-A of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Rules had expired and that provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 would not apply and hence the principle of sufficient cause could not administered.

3. Now be noticed the necessary facts in a nutshell. The respondent herein instituted Lavad Suit before the court of Board of Nominees against the petitioner for recovery of money, in which it was the case of the petitioner that the summons issued to him was wrongly shown to have been refused. A decree dated 29th July, 2011 came to be passed by the Board of Nominees. Upon coming to know about the decree, the petitioner filed application under section 99(6) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, alongwith application for condonation, whereupon the Lavad Suit was restored and renumbered.

3.1 In response to the fresh summons issued on 14.08.2012, the petitioner filed on 9th November, 2012, the application for leave to defend. The application was delay by 86 days as Rules 41A of the aforesaid rules contemplated period of ten days from the date of service of summons for filing leave to defend application. The grounds raised for condonation were of illness and delay in engaging advocate. The Board of Nominees rejected the condonation application at Eh. 21, and the challenge thereto failed before the Tribunal, which is the order impugned herein. It was ruled by the Tribunal having regard to the provision of the Rule 41A of the Rules, Sec. 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 could not be applied, therefore, on that footing the Tribunal did not go into the question of condonability on the ground of sufficiency of cause for delay, treating the time limit in Rule 41A to be mandatory discarding provisions of the Limitation Act.

4. Both at the stage of issuance of notice as well as after issuance of Rule in the petition, through served, the respondent did not appear. This court heard learned advocate for the petitioner Mr. Baiju Joshi.

5. Section 41-A of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 reads as under,-

“Section 41-A. Summary procedure for deciding disputes.

(1) In dispute referred to in sub-sec; (4) of Sec. 99, the disputant shall in addition to the normal averment in Form ‘K’ make the following averment namely :-

(a) that the claim of the disputant is for recovery of liquidated sum of money only and no other relief beyond the scopes of this rule is claimed in the dispute.

(b) That the disputant believes that there is no valid or bona fide defence to his claim.

(2) (i) Within ten days from the service of a notice calling upon the opponent to obtain leave from the Registrar to appear and defend the claim, the opponent or such of the opponents as are interested in defending the claim shall apply to the Registrar by an affidavit of a declaration for the leave setting out the facts on which he relies, and what triable issues are likely to arise. The opponent shall in such application disclose all the documents supporting his contention and as far as possible attach copies of such documents which he considers important from his point of view. A copy of such application shall be served on the disputant and he shall have a right to file a rejoinder in the form of an affidavit or declaration and place before the deciding authority. Such material as in his opinion supports his contentions.

(ii) The Registrar, on reading the affidavits and declarations and on hearin