Authority: High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla

Order Date: 09 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: The Talai Gram Sewa Co-operative Society Ltd.
  • Respondents: Savitri Devi, Sandeep Kumar, Anita Devi, Vandana Devi, Ajmer Singh (individual respondents) and Respondent No.4 – Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P.
  • Writ Petitions: CWP Nos. 9117, 9120, 9122, 9126, 9134, 9140, 9166 & 9315 of 2026, consolidated for adjudication as they arise from similar impugned orders and raise the same question of law.
  • Background: The society filed appeals under Section 93(2)(C) of the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 against decisions rendered under Section 72 of the Act by the Assistant Registrar. The appeals were filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. Simultaneously, the society moved applications under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay.
  • Assistant Registrar’s Findings: Respondent No.4 held that the limitation period had expired, that he possessed no authority to entertain Section 5 applications, and that the Limitation Act was inapplicable to appeals under Section 93(2)(C). Consequently, the condonation applications were rejected and the appeals dismissed.
  • Court’s Reasoning: The bench, presided by Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, observed that the reasoning of the Assistant Registrar conflicted with established law. The court relied on the precedent Jogindera Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. versus Addl. Registrar (Mon.) Co-operative Societies & Others (CMPMO No.361/2024, decided on 19 May 2025), which held that the provisions of the Limitation Act are excluded from applicability to proceedings under Sections 69, 73 and 88 of the Act, but are applicable to proceedings under Sections 93, 94, etc. Hence, the Assistant Registrar erred in declaring the Limitation Act inapplicable.
  • Procedural Note: The petitioners had served dasti notices on respondents No.1‑3, who did not appear, leading to ex‑parte proceedings. No reply was filed by respondents No.4‑5, and the court found no necessity to call them for a reply.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petitions were allowed.
  • All impugned orders passed by Respondent No.4 (Assistant Registrar) are set aside.
  • The matters are remanded to the Assistant Registrar to consider the society’s applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on their own merits.
  • Both parties are directed to appear before the Assistant Registrar on 29 July 2026 for further proceedings.
  • Any pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are to be disposed of.

Topics: Co-operative Society Law, Limitation Act