This writ petition raises the issue whether delay can be condoned by an Appellate or Revisional forum even in the absence of an application for the said purpose.

2. The petitioner, admittedly, borrowed two loans: (1) Rs.10,000/- in 1995; (2) Rs.2,00,000/- in 2001. Having committed default in repayment of the said loans, the petitioner has, however, applied for the benefit of remission before the Kerala Agricultural Relief Commission, which has eventually scaled down the debt and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1,13,241/-, as full and final payment, both the loan accounts taken together.

3. The respondent Bank has, despite the remission provided by the Commission, issued a demand notice to the petitioner insisting on his paying Rs.2,96,964/-, that being the total outstanding amount in the two loan accounts. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed A.R.C. No.283/2010, which was partially allowed by the learned Arbitration Court, through Exhibit P1 award, dated 30.03.2013. Further aggrieved, the petitioner, invoking Section 84 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, filed Revision No.58/2013 before the Tribunal on 18.07.2013. Eventually, the learned Tribunal dismissed the revision holding that the petitioner had neither explained the delay in filing the appeal, nor filed any separate application for condonation of delay. Assailing Exhibit P6 order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Section 84 per se does not impose any temporal limitation against an aggrieved person's invoking the Revisional jurisdiction of the statutory Tribunal. She has, further, submitted that this Court by way of judicial interpretation has determined that in the absence of any prescriptive period, ninety days should be the accepted period within which time the Revisional jurisdiction is to be invoked.

5. Placing reliance on Thajuddin Shameer v. Secretary Coastal Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd.,[2004 (1) KLT 909] the learned counsel has strenuously contended that since the delay is only ten days, there is no need, as has been held by this Court, to file a separate application for condonation of delay. According to her, the Tribunal ought to have entertained the Revision Petition in the interest of justice instead of dismissing it on a mere technicality.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank has, however, strenuously opposed the claims and contentions of the petitioner. To begin with, the learned counsel has submitted that in the absence of any separate application for condoning the delay, there is every justification on the part of the Tribunal in dismissing the Revision Petition.

7. In addition, the learned counsel has made elaborate submissions on the merits of the matter contending that there are no bona fides on the part of the petitioner. In elaboration of his submissions, he has submitted that before approaching the Tribunal or even at the time of seeking condonation of delay, if such a remedy is available for the petitioner, he ought to have paid, at least, the amount quantified by the Commission.

8. Be that as it may, this Court does not propose to enter into the arena of merits of the matter, for the scope of the writ petition is very much limited. All that this Court is called upon in the writ petition to decide is whether Exhibit P2 order of the Revisional Court refusing to condone the delay be sustained.

9. Section 84 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act confers revisional powers on the Tribunal, which is also an Appellate Authority. It is apposite to examine the said provision, which reads as under:

"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,