$~18 & 19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 13^th April, 2026 Uploaded on: 15^th April, 2026 ~18 + W.P.(C) 7138/2019 & CM APPL. 29707/2019 SH. ANIL KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mohit Choudhary, Adv.

versus REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhinav Singh, Adv. for RCS ~19 + W.P.(C) 7173/2019 & CM APPL. 29854/2019 SH. ANIL KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mohit Choudhary, Adv.

versus REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhinav Singh, Adv. for RCS CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 28^th May, 2019 passed by the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal (hereinafter “DCT”) by which the appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation.

3. The brief facts of the case are that a loan for a sum of Rs. 9 Lakhs was availed by Mr. Kishan Kumar and Mr. Bharat Kumar from the C.A. Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. (hereinafter “the Society”), out of which, they received a sum of Rs. 7,92,000/- for purchasing a property bearing No. 189, measuring 40 Sq. Yards, out of Khasra No. 624 in Village Karkardooma, Illaqua Shahdara, Delhi – 110092.

4. The Petitioner had stood as surety to the said loan. In respect of the said loan amount, the repayment of a sum of Rs. 5,81,900/- was made by Respondent No. 3.

5. According to the Petitioner, the Society, thereafter, filed its claim for arbitration before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in which the Petitioner is stated to have not been served. The matter was referred to arbitration and the award was passed on 17^th May, 2017 in the following terms:

“This case is, therefore proceeded Award against all the Defendants.

I, having considered the facts of the case brought out and after going through the records of the society and after hearing the Authorized Representative for the Claimant, I am convinced with the genuineness of the Claim. I therefore, pass the award as under:

Defendants are not liable to pay the amount of Rs.50000/- being expenses incurred upon initiation of the proceedings u/s 138 Negotiable Instrument Act.

Sh. Kishan Kumar (Principal Debtor/Defendant No.1) and his surety Sh. Bharat Kumar (Defendant No. 2) and Sh. Anil Kumar (Defendant No. 3) are directed to pay jointly and severally to CA CO-

OPERATIVE THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.

The amount as follows:

Principal amount Rs. 900000/-

Interest & Penal Interest as on 30.09.2016 Rs. 211945/-

Arbitration Cost Rs. 22396/-

Total Rs. 1134341/-

Plus further interest & penal interest @ 18% +3% per annum compounded quarterly to continue w.e.f.

01.10.2016 till realization in full.”

6. According to the Petitioner, he was never served with the award and it was only, when the execution petition was filed that the Petitioner learnt of the award which was passed. Thereafter, the Petitioner is stated to have engaged a Counsel who filed an appeal against the said award. Thus, there was a delay of 626 days in filing the appeal.

7. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal was sought. However, vide the impugned order the application for condonation of delay was rejected on the ground that there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay. The finding of the DCT is as under:-

“11. The applicant has not only been negligent but also mis-conducted because even after service of notice of the appeal filed by principal debtor other guarantor, he did not file any appeal within the stipulated period and also absented in the said proceedings. He has also taken a false plea that he came to know about the execution proceedings in March 2019 and about the passing of the impugned award only on 19th March 2019 although he was served with the notice of appeal preferred by principal debtor and co-surety bearing appeal no.

81/2017, on 13.11.17.

12