The Court determined that a Revision Petition can be filed without a fixed time limit, allowing for delay provided sufficient reasons are given, especially under the 1969 Act.

JUDGMENT The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by the 3^rd respondent Bank to recover amounts due in terms of Ext.P1 award in ARC No.1045/2024.

2. When this matter came up for consideration before this Court on 13.02.2026, this Court ordered notice by speed post to respondents 2 and 3. Registry reports that no process has been paid to take out notice though the learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that such process has been paid.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to file a Revision Petition against Ext.P1 award before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal under Section 84 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act , 1969 (in short ‘the 1969 Act’).

4. The learned Government Pleader submits that though Section 84 of the 1969 Act does not fix any time limit within which a Revision Petition has to be filed, this Court has held that the reasonable time within which a Revision Petition has to be filed is a period of 90 days. Reference is made in this regard to the judgment of this Court in Thalassery Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2016(2) KLT SN 81 C.No.93]. It is submitted that even where a Revision Petition is filed beyond the period of 90 days on sufficient reason being shown, the Tribunal can condone the delay going by the law laid down by this Court in Joseph K.V. v. Secretary, Thodupuzha Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank [2015 (4)

KHC 569] .

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the opinion that though service is not complete on the 3^rd respondent Bank, this writ petition can be disposed of permitting the petitioner to file a Revision Petition before the Co-operative Tribunal against Ext.P1 award along with an application for condonation of delay and an application for stay. Since the proceedings following the award are only at the stage of measurement of the property of the petitioner in order to bring it to sale, I am of the opinion that further proceedings can be deferred by a period of three weeks to enable the petitioner to seek appropriate relief from the Tribunal.

6. Accordingly, this writ petition will stand disposed of directing that if the petitioner were to file a Revision Petition against Ext.P1 award within a period of one week from today (17.02.2026), further proceedings for enforcement of Ext.P1 award shall be deferred till the Tribunal takes a decision on the stay petition to be filed by the petitioner along with a Revision Petition. It is made clear that since the period of 90 days has already expired from the date of Ext.P1 award, the petitioner shall also file an appropriate application giving reasons as to why the delay in filing the Revision Petition should be condoned. The Tribunal shall consider the stay petition and the application for condonation of delay, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to the 3^rd respondent and shall pass orders on both the applications without undue delay. It is made clear that the Tribunal needs to pass orders on the merits of the stay petition and the appeal only if it decides to condone the delay in filing the Revision Petition taking into consideration the law laid down by this Court in Joseph K.V. (supra). To enable the petitioner to seek orders as above from the Tribunal, further coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall stand deferred by a period of three weeks from today (17.02.2026). It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and any observation in this judgment is only for the purposes of noticing the facts.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-