1. The point to be decided in this O.P. is whether there is any time limit for filing a Revision Petition before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal under S.84 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The brief facts of the case are the following:

2. The petitioners are the members of the Coastal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.3036, Kollam. They have availed loans from the said Bank. They committed default in paying the amounts due under the loans. Therefore, the Bank moved the arbitrator and Exts.P1 and P1(a) have been passed in favour of the Bank and against the petitioners. The respondents in the arbitration case filed R.P. Nos.236/2002 and 235/2002 before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal under S.84 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Those Revision Petitions were filed after a delay of one year and four months and two years and five months respectively. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revision Petitions as barred by limitation by Exts.P2 and P2(a) orders. This Original Petition is filed challenging those orders.

3. The petitioners submit that the Act does not prescribe any period of limitation and therefore, they can move the Tribunal at any time, according to their convenience. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit, supporting the impugned order. It is submitted that since no petitions to condone the delay have been filed, in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court relied on by the Tribunal, the Revision Petitions were rightly rejected.

4. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent Bank and also the learned Government Pleader. The point to be decided is whether the Revision Petitions filed by the petitioners are barred by limitation and therefore, the revisions were rightly dismissed. S.84 of the Co-operative Societies Act reads as follows.

"84. Revision by Tribunal.- The Tribunal may call for and examine the record of any proceedings in which an appeal lies to it for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed and if in any case it shall appear to the Tribunal that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled or revised, the Tribunal may pass such order thereon as it may deem fit:

Provided that the Tribunal shall not take any action under this section if,.?

(a) the time for appeal against the decision or order has not expired; or

(b) the decision or order has been made the subject matter of an appeal.

Provided further that no order shall be made under this section unless notice has been given to all interested parties and they have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard."

The Legislature has chosen to prescribe periods of limitation for filing appeal under S.82 before the Tribunal, appeal under S.83 before the Government, review before the Tribunal under S.85 and revision before the Government under S.87. Only in the case of revision under S.84 before the Tribunal, the Legislature has chosen not to prescribe any time limit. So revisions were being entertained without any reference to the delay in filing them. There is no decision of this Court directly on this point. But the Tribunal has relied on a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Moideen Koya v. Kunhammed Haji (1999 (2) KLT 646 FB), interpreting S.20 of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act to dismiss the revisions. S.20 of the said Act reads as follows:

"20. Revisions.-

(1) In cases where the Appellate Authority empowered under S.18 is a Subordinate Judge, the District Court, and in other cases the High Court may, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act by such authority for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order or proceedings and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit.

(2) The costs of and incident to all proceedings b