ORDER

1. Heard Sri.Deviprasad Shetty, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Jayakumar S.Patil, the learned Senior counsel along with Sri.Sandesh T.B., the learned counsel appearing for caveator/respondent No.3.

2. Learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that relief is not sought against the 2nd respondent -Society as such he would submit that the notice to the 2nd respondent -Society be dispensed with.

4. Accordingly, notice to the 2nd respondent -Society is dispensed with at the risk of the petitioner. This order does not bind on the 2nd respondent -Society.

5. The petitioner who is a Director of 2nd respondent -

Society is aggrieved by the interim order granted by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Revision Petition No.56/2023. The said Revision Petition is filed challenging the interim order passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies/1st respondent on an application filed by the present petitioner to vacate the interim order granted earlier in favour of the 3rd respondent.

6. The background facts are as under:

According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent who was a Director of the 2nd respondent-Society tendered his resignation to the directorship on 25.03.2022. On 18.04.2022 according to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent-Society passed a resolution accepting the resignation. The 3rd respondent has raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, before the 1st respondent alleging that he has not tendered his resignation. The signature on the resignation is disputed.

7. The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies granted an exparte interim order staying the operation of the resolution dated 18.04.2022. The present petitioner impleaded himself as a party to the said proceeding. He filed an application to vacate the exparte interim order on the premise that the resignation becomes operative soon after expiry of 15 days from the date of resignation as same is not withdrawn by the 3rd respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed an application to vacate the exparte stay order. The 1st respondent-Authority accepted the plea made in the application and vacated the interim stay order granted by the Authority.

8. Aggrieved by the said order, the 3rd respondent filed a Revision Petition before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal passed a stay order after hearing the present petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petitioner is before this Court.

9. Learned counsel Sri.Deviprasad Shetty, for the petitioner would contend that the respondents did not file objection to the application for vacating the stay filed before the 1st respondent-Authority and in addition to that, the 1st respondent has considered the disputed signature of the 3rd respondent on the resignation letter as well as his admitted signatures and has come to the conclusion that the 3rd respondent did not withdraw the resignation within 15 days from the date of tendering his signature and has rightly vacated the exparte interim order. It is his further contention that the Appellate Authority in exercise of Revisional jurisdiction could not have stayed the order passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies vacating exparte interim stay order.

10. Sri.Jayakumar S.Patil, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would contend that the submission made by the 3rd respondent before the 1st respondent-Authority was misconstrued. It is his submission that merely because the petitioner before the 1st respondent Authority did submit that there is no objection to the application for vacating stay, it should not be construed as a consent for vacating the interim order. Submission was to the effect that there is no need to file any formal objection to the said application. It is his contention that averments made in the petit