R.S.Garg, J.

( 1. ) To crease out the wrinkles it is necessary to enter into the controversy with a little deeper probe. The Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sahakari Bank Maryadit filed Suit No.E/64/42/2005 in the Court of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, District Indore for recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,64,790.69 with costs and interest at the rate of 13% per annum and penal interest at 3% in addition to the regular interest. It appears that an exparte award was made by the learned Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies on 21.2.2006. It also appears from the records that when the property was put to auction the present petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 C.P.C submitting inter alia that as he had no knowledge about pendency of the proceedings and the decision and he came to know about passing of the final order on 28.1.2008 when a proclamation was affixed on the property, the exparte award be set aside. Along with the petition an application for grant of stay of the execution proceedings was also filed. On 7.2.2008 the learned Deputy Registrar in Case No.42/2005 directed stay of further proceedings in the execution and also directed stay of execution of the exparte award. The Court directed issue of notice to the other side on the petition filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. so also on the stay application. The respondent/decree holder challenged the order dated 7.2.2008 in Revision No. 11 of 2008 before the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Indore. By order dated 10.4.2008 the learned Joint Registrar not only vacated the interim order but even rejected the petitioners application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C observing that the application was not maintainable. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Joint Registrar the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Cooperative Tribunal under Section 77 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, the said revision came to be registered as Revision Case No. 98 of 2008. The present petitioner submitted before the Board of the Revenue that the learned Joint Registrar was absolutely unjustified in rejecting the petitioners application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. so also he was unjustified in vacating the interim order dated 7.2.2008. The contentions and submissions were opposed by the present respondent and it was submitted that on petitioners own showing his application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was patently illegal, unjustified, misconceived and not maintainable. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal in paragraph 9 clearly observed that the revision before the Joint Registrar was against the order granting stay but however, the Tribunal observed that if the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was not maintainable interim stay could not be granted. In paragraph 10 the division Bench of the Tribunal observed that the order dated 10.4.2008 passed by the learned Joint Registrar suffered with the technical defect but however, came to dismiss the revision petition. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal the petitioner is before us.

( 2. ) Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner after taking us through the orders dated 7.2.2008, 10.4.2008 and the order dated 11.11.2009 (passed by the Tribunal) submitted that if the trial Court has yet not applied its mind to the petitioners application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C then the appellate or revisional Court were not entitled to enter into the merit and hold that the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C was misconceived and not maintainable and was liable to be rejected. His submission is that in the revision the Joint Registrar had limited scope and the Joint Registrar was only required to see whether stay of the execution should have been granted or not and under the circumstances the order passed by the learned Joint Registrar was patently illegal and without jurisdiction and consequent