The Arbitrator's jurisdiction under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act is not limited to express powers, allowing for broader application of authority to ensure justice.

1 While exercising the powers under S.98 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', is the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator cribbed, cabined and confined only to those powers specified therein or is he to exercise those powers which are not expressly prohibited since there is a bar of jurisdiction to the civil court is the question that arises for consideration in this case.

2 Petitioners in O. P. No. 3685 of 1997 are the appellants. They were defendants in A. R. C. No. 273 of 1994 before the third respondent. The said Arbitration Case was instituted by the first respondent, the Idukki District Cooperative Bank Ltd., hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank'. The Bank sanctioned a loan of Rs. 3,03,500/- to a partnership firm by name M/s. Kalvary Milk Products. There were three partners in the firm and the first appellant was the managing partner. The loan was sanctioned on the security of 30 cents of property owned by the firm and on the collateral security of certain properties owned by the second appellant. After availing an amount of Rs. 1,64,000/- the firm was dissolved on 26.10.1988 which came into effect from 16.12.1988. Thereafter the first petitioner became the sole proprietor and subsequently he availed a loan of Rs. 1,34,500/- from the sanctioned loan. However while filing the arbitration case all the defendants were not impleaded. The defendants impleaded were the first appellant who was the sole proprietor and the erstwhile managing partner and the second appellant whose property had been offered as collateral security. Hence Ext. P1 objection was filed before the Arbitrator which reads as follows:
"The existing A. R. C. No. 273/94 has been filed without impleading the necessary parties in the defendants' side. The Bank has to get relief from other defendants also who have not been impleaded by mistake and oversight.
Hence it is humbly prayed that this Authority may be pleased to allow the plaintiff Bank to withdraw the A. R. C. No. 273/94 and to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action against the defendants and others who are to be impleaded in addition to the existing defendants."

3 As per Ext. P2 the appellants resisted the application for withdrawal. The appellants also strongly objected to the relief sought for filing a fresh case. According to the appellants the Arbitrator has no power to pass an order under O.23 of the Code of Civil Procedure for allowing withdrawal of the case with liberty to file a fresh case. By Ext. P3 the Arbitrator allowed the petition and permission was granted to withdraw the case and to file afresh after impleading necessary parties on the same cause of action. The matter was taken up in revision as per Ext. P4, mainly on the ground of maintainability of a petition for withdrawal and the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to permit the same. By Ext. P5 order except the modification of granting a cost of Rs. 1000/- to the defendants in all other respects the revision petition was dismissed by the Tribunal. Hence the challenge against Exts. P3 and P5.

4 The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that as far as an Arbitrator under the Act is concerned, he has got only certain limited powers enumerated under S.98 of the Act and nothing more. O.23 R.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not one among the power conferred on him and hence Ext. P3 and the subsequent revisional order Ext. P5 are liable to be set aside.

5 Learned Single Judge considered the various contentions and guided by the dictum laid down by the decision of a learned Single Judge in Cheru Ouseph v. Kunhipathumma, 1981 KLT 495 and the Bench decisions of this Court in Gopalan Bhavani v. Raghavan Aravindakshan, 1989 (2) KLT 118, Pudupariyaram Service Coop. Society v. Rugmini Amma, 1996 (1) KLT 100 and Jullunder Duree & Niwar Mfg. Co. v. Jayadevan, 1999 (1) KLJ 46 held that the Arbitrator acted within his jurisdiction and therefore dismissed the Original Petition; hence the Wri