The court emphasized that a second revision petition was not maintainable when the first revision petition was withdrawn, and no reason was shown for granting permission to file a fresh revision petition.

S. S. Sudhalkar, J.

1. By this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging order dated 12.5.1999 passed by the Registrar, Co- operative Societies which is as under :

"arguments heard. The case is remanded back to D. R. C. S. Ferozepur for passing a speaking order. Petition is disposed of accordingly".

2. The fact which emerge from the order which has been set aside i. e. annexure P/3 which is an order passed by the Deputy Registrar in appeal filed by respondents No.3 Amarjit Sharma are as under :

3. Amarjit Sharma was working with the Fatehgarh Panjtoor Co-operative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "society" ). An arbitration case for the principal amount of Rs.53430.28 was prepared which was decided against him on 2.8.1988 by the Assistant Registrar, co-operative Societies, Fazilka, Amarjit Sharma filed appeal and vide order dated 18.10.1988 the case was remanded for fresh decision to the Assistant registrar, Co-operative Societies, Zira who gave award against Amarjit Sharma on 2.9.1992. Amarjit Sharma filed revision petition and vide order dated 27.4.1994, the case was remanded for fresh decision by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division. The said order is produced at annexure R3/1.

4. After the remand, the case was heard on different dates. On 18.7.1996, the case was dismissed in default. The restoration application was accepted on 21.8.1997. The appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Registrar and the reasons for dismissal of the appeal are as under :

"after hearing both the parties and looking to the arbitration file, the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Fazilka while giving his award on 2.8.1988 against the appellant has referred to the detail of the amount against the appellant in view of the record of the Co-operative society, he has given the reason how this amount is due against him. Like this way, the Asstt. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Zira in his decision dated 2.9.1992 has given the detail of the dispute that the record of the society was written by Shri Amarjit Sharma appellant, he has made the entries in the cash book and admitted those entries. When the appellant admitted the entries done by him in the record then there is no necessity of further examination, besides this the awards already passed against the appellant the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative appellant by, Fazilka and Zira are self speaking, there is no further need to go through those awards. So I dismissed the appeal and upheld the arbitration award dated 2.9.1992 passed by the Assistant Registrar, co-operative Societies, Zira"

(Reproduced as translated ).

5 Against the dismissal of the appeal Amarjit Sharma filed a revision application before the State Government. As per annexure P/1, a letter written by the Joint Secretary, Co-operative, the following order was passed in the revision application :

"heard. The counsel for the petitioner stated that this case may kindly be dismissed as with drawn. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn. "

6. Therefore, the revision petition filed by Amarjit Sharma was dismissed as withdrawn. Amarjit Sharma then filed a revision petition in the Court of registrar Co-operative Societies, Punjab and in that revision, the impugned order dated 12.5.1999 reproduced in annexure P/2 was passed.

7. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the second revision was not maintainable when first revision petition was withdrawn. The second revision could not be filed. In the written statement, respondent No.3 Amarjit Sharma has taken up a contention that he being secretary of the Society was neither a party to the original arbitration reference nor ought to have been held liable for the amount in dispute, because it relates to the petitioner Mukhtiar Singh.

8. It is, therefore, clear that earlier revision petition was filed by respondent No.3. It came up for hearing before the Joint Secretary Co-operative, punjab and w