1.In this case, the short question falls for determination is whether the Joint Registrar is competent to entertain a miscellaneous application under R.34(1)(b) of the Karnataka Co - operative Societies Rules, 1960 (for short the Rules ) to set aside an ex parte decision or award after thirty (30) days from the date of such decision or award was made when such decision or award had been duly served in the dispute or in other cases after thirty (30) days from the date of knowledge of such decision or award having been made?.

2. A few facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as under: The petitioner had filed a dispute in case No.JRB.MD. 12/2001 - 2002 against the 1st respondent before the second respondent under S.70 of the Karnataka Co - operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short the Act ) for recovery of a sum of 7,89,820/-. The second respondent passed an award dated 21.2.2003 directing the first respondent to pay a sum of 7,89,820/- with interest at 18% per annum from 22.6.1990 till the date of payment. The first respondent did not pay the said amount in terms of the award. Therefore, the petitioner filed an execution case No.758/2008 on the file of the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, for execution of the award. Notice in the case was served on the first respondent on 28.11.2008. On 16.2.2009, the first respondent filed a miscellaneous case under R.31(4)(b) to set aside the award dated 21.2.2003. He has also filed an application along with the miscellaneous case under S.5 of the Indian Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay in filing the miscellaneous case. The petitioner has opposed the application by filing objections. The second respondent has allowed the application by his order at Annexure J dated 1.6.2009. The petitioner filed a revision petition No.61/2009 under S.107 of the Act before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, challenging the said order. The Appellate Tribunal has rejected the application by its order at Annexure K dated 19.2.2010. The petitioner has called in question the validity of the said order in this case.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent was placed ex parte in the award proceedings before the second respondent. The award was passed on 21.2.2003. In the Execution Case No.758/2008, the petitioner was served with a notice on 28.11.2008. Thus, on the said date, the first respondent had the knowledge of the award at Annexure C . The petitioner ought to have filed the miscellaneous case under R.31(4)(b) within 30 days from the date of the knowledge of the award. The miscellaneous case was filed on 16.2.2009. Thus, there is a delay of about two months in filing the miscellaneous case. The second respondent should not have entertained the miscellaneous case as it was filed beyond 30 days from the date of the knowledge of, the award. It is further argued that S.4, S.5, S.12 and S.14 of the Indian Limitation Act are applicable to the filing of any appeal or application for revision under the Act having regard to S.119 of the Act. S.5 of the Limitation Act is not made applicable for seeking condonation of delay in filing the miscellaneous case under R.31(4)(b). The second respondent is not right in allowing the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the miscellaneous case. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal ought to have set aside the order of the second respondent.

4. Though the first respondent is served, he has remained unrepresented. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent submits that under S.119 of the Act, S.4, S.5, S.12 and S.14 of the Limitation Act are made applicable to the filing of appeal or application for revision under the Act. There is no bar for condoning the delay in filing a miscellaneous case under R.31(4)(b) of the Rules in accordance with S.5 of the Limitation Act.

5. Before dealing with the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to note the relevant stat