The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Co-operative Arbitration Court has the power to appoint an expert as it deems appropriate to render complete justice, and the parties cannot appoint their own expert.

The petitioner, a primary Co-operative society, a juristic person, as has been rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, has been never affected by the impugned order in the first place. For whatever reason, it has chosen through its Secretary to challenge Ext.P7 order. As this Court is usually avers to non-suiting a party on a technicality, it has felt it desirable to entertain the writ petition. And it did entertain.

2. The facts in brief are that respondents 1 and 2 filed an Election Petition before the 16th respondent, the Co-operative Arbitration Court, assailing the election of respondents 5 to 14. In ARC No. 79 of 2012, respondents 1 and 2 filed I.A. No. 36 of 2015 for a direction to open the election records and examine the Secretary of the Bank with respect to its contents. The Arbitration Court eventually passed Ext.P7 order to the following effect:

"However, nothing preclude this Court to examine and verify the documents produced by the Counter Petitioner/Defendant as per the direction of the Court. It can also be examined and verified either directly by the Court itself or through any authorised person/expert in the presence of Counsel appearing on either side. Hence this application is allowed partially and the petitioner/plaintiff is directed to take steps to examine the election records produced by the Counter Petitioner/Defendant through an expert Commission. The prayer to summon the Secretary of the Counter Petitioner/Defendant bank to give evidence with regard to the contents of the election records is hereby declined."

3. Assailing Ext.P7 order, the petitioner society has filed the present writ petition.

4. This Court, on 19.01.2016, has issued the following interim direction:

"Prima facie, this Court is not persuaded by the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 16th respondent has no jurisdiction to issue Ext.P7 interim order. It is, however, of the opinion that the learned Arbitration Court ought to have, if it deemed appropriate, appointed an 'expert commission' by itself and entrusted the task of verifying the records in question.

In the facts and circumstances, there shall be an interim suspension of Ext.P7 for four weeks."

5. Having entered appearance, respondents 1 and 2 filed their counter affidavit seeking, among other things, the vacation of the interim order.

6. Sri. V.G. Arun, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has strenuously contended that Ext.P7 order expressly reveals that the Arbitration Court has allowed respondents 1 and 2 to have on their own an expert appointed, so that the said expert could look into the issue and submit a report to the Arbitration Court. According to him, it is impermissible.

7. The learned counsel has also submitted that Section 70 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act enumerates the powers of the Co-operative Arbitration Court. The said provision, especially sub-section 3 thereof, read in conjunction with Rule 67(5) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules ('the Rules'), does not empower the Arbitration Court to appoint any so-called experts for the purpose of gathering evidence.

8. Touching upon the merits of the matter, the learned counsel has also contended that the scope of the ARC is extremely limited and Ext.P7 order goes beyond the purview of the dispute raised in the election petition.

9. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, on the other hand, has submitted that the writ petition, in the first place, is not maintainable at the behest of the society, which is not an aggrieved prison. According to him, even the Secretary, who is the protagonist to the litigation before this Court, cannot be said to have been affected by any stretch of the term.

10. The learned counsel has also further contended that Ext.P7 order only mandates that the Arbitration Court would appoint an expert to inspect the records and submit an objective report for the consideration of the learned Arbitrator. According to him, Ext.P7 o