ORDER

1. Though this matter is listed today for orders on admission, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties it is heard finally.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 29.1.2018 (Annexure-P/1) passed by M.P.State Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") in Second Appeal No.07/2017 whereby the appeal preferred against the order of Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Naramadapuram has been rejected.

3. Facts, in brief, are that respondent while on deputation with the petitioner withdrawn Rs.15,88,206/- without following procedure. Therefore, petitioner after retirement of respondent asked for amount of interest from the respondent as he illegally utilized public money. The respondent raised a dispute before Deputry Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Betul. which was decided against the respondent vide order dated 14.7.2016. Thereafter, the respondent filed appeal being Case No.242/2016 before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Hoshangabad, which was allowed and vide order dated 23.11.2016 (Annexure-P/2) and order of Deputy Registrar was set aside. Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred Second Appeal No.07/2017 under section 78(2) of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 before the Tribunal on 19.1.2017. The Tribunal dismissed the second appeal being barred by 5 days as order challenged is dated 23.11.2016 and appeal has been preferred beyond prescribed period of 30 days on 19.1.2017.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal has taken very hyper-technical view as the delay was not inordinate and same ought to have been condoned.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent at the outset submits that he has not objection if the petition is allowed, but the Tribunal be directed to expeditiously decide the appeal on merits as the respondent has won from both the courts below.

6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. From perusal of Annexure-P/2 dated 23.11.2016 it is seen that order of Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Betul was set aside. Against order dated 23.11.2016 the Managing Director, Jila Vanopaj Sangh Sahakari Maryadit, Betul has filed second appeal on 29.1.2017. The same has been dismissed on the ground that appeal is allegedly delayed by 5 days because impugned order is dated 23.11.2016 and appeal has been filed on 19.1.2017.

7. The apex Court in the case of Raheem Shah and another v. Govind Singh and others, 2023 Live Law (SC) 572 has laid down as follows:-

“3. It is in that light, the appellants are before this Court in this appeal. At the outset, having taken note that the contention in the appeal before the lower Appellate Court was that the judgment was not in the knowledge of the appellants herein, that aspect of the matter was required to be kept in view by the lower Appellate Court since the appellants in fact had not taken ef ective part except filing written statement. When there was delay of only 52 days in filing the appeal and furthermore when the parties were litigating with regard to the right over immovable properties, the substantial rights were to be decided between the parties. The delay could have been condoned and the appeal could have been decided on merits.

4. This Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107 has held as hereunder:

“The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on ‘merits’. The expression ‘suf icient cause’ employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice-that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in m