The provisions of the Limitation Act, including Section 5, apply to appeals under the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, allowing for delay condonation if sufficient cause is shown.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

1. Since pure question of law is involved in both these petitions filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India, therefore, facts of the same need not be gone into and are being disposed of by common judgment.

2. The question of law posed is whether the provisions of the Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short “the Limitation Act”) apply to an appeal under Section 93 of the H.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 (for short, the Act of 1968)?

3. The Additional Registrar-respondent No.1 in CMPMO No. 361/2024 has held the appeal to be not maintainable by holding that he had no power to condone the delay as would be evident from the relevant portion of the impugned order, which reads as under:-

“The impugned order dated 20.06.2022 of the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies Solan has been passed in the surcharge proceedings while exercising the statutory powers by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to all the concerned parties. As per specific provision contained in Section 93(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1968, an appeal is required to be preferred within 60 days from the decision or order and in contrary to this provision, the Appellant has filed present appeal in the month of March, 2023 after inordinate delay of more than four months. It is settled proposition that in case where there is a lack of power to condone delay in filing appeal beyond the limitation period specified inje statutes. The Appellate Authority is typically bound by the statutory limitations and may nae have the discretion to extend the filing deadline. Admittedly, the Appellant Banle aware about the order in question wherein the Bank representative was duly sticlated the thus, the Bank failed to assail the order within time as outlined in Section 93 (2) of the Act lis Rather the order has attained finality and this Forum has no power to condone the delay ss this Forum cannot be construed as Court in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1968. Furthermore, it is well known proposition that when the special Statute dies noe contain a provision making the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation applicable, the question of condonation of delay invoking that provision does not arise. The period prescribed was no power to condone the delay to entertain an appeal filed beyond the times prescribed altese Statute for filing of appeal has already expired. In these circumstances, when there ander the Act, the delay cannot be condoned by invoking the provisions of Limitation Act.

In view of express provisions contained in the Act an appeal cannot be entertained beyond the prescribed period and there is no inherent right of appeal under the Act and thus, the Appellate authority has no power, express or implied, to condone the delay and entertain an appeal.”

4. As regards CMPMO No. 223/2025, the Additional Registrar-respondent No.1 framed the following questions of law for consideration in the appeal:-

1) Whether the Registrar Cooperative Societies while hearing the appeal under section 93 of Act, 1968, is a court?

2) Whether applicability of section 29 (2) of Limitation Act is with regard to different limitation prescribed in any suit, appeal or application to be filed only in a court or Section 29 (2) can be pressed in service with regards to filing of a suit, appeal or application before statutory authorities provided in special or Local laws?

3) Whether Registrar Cooperative Societies while hearing the appeal under section 93 is entitled to condone a delay in filing an appeal applying the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963?

4) Whether the statutory scheme of Act, 1968 indicates that section 5 of Limitation Act is applicable to proceedings before its authorities?

5. Question of No.1 was answered by holding that the Registrar, Cooperative Societies was not a Court, whereas questions No. 2 and 3 were answered in the following manner:-

(a) The applicabilit