SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,J. - (1.) THE petitioner-society filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to assail the order of the Deputy Registrar (Arbitration) dated 20.12.2010 issued on 07.01.2011 as well as the order dated 11.01.2012 of the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal (DCT) dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-society. The effect of these orders is that an application filed by respondent no.1 under Section 70 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ,,the said Act) seeking reference of disputes to arbitration has been allowed. Normally, we would not have entertained the writ petition as the impugned order merely refers the claim of respondent No. 1 to arbitration and it does not decide any rights of the parties on merit. However, it is pointed out by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the Registrar, while deciding to refer the claims to arbitration, is obliged to decide the aspect of limitation and the said aspect has completely escaped consideration by the Deputy Registrar (Arbitration), and has been erroneously been decided by the DCT upon adoption of a wrong approach. It is argued that in the facts of this case, ex- facie the claim of respondent No. 1 was barred by limitation. It is in these circumstances that we have decided to examine the matter.
(2.) RESPONDENT no.1 filed a claim petition under Section 70 of the said Act for reference of disputes to adjudication under Section 71 of the said Act alleging that he is the bona fide member of the petitioner-society holding a valid share certificate issued on 01.11.1990. Respondent no.1 claims to be living in the same locality where the plots of the society are located as his father was an independent member of the society with whom he was staying. Respondent no.1 claims that no plot was available for allotment by the society to its waitlisted members as the competent authority had failed to allot additional land. Respondent No. 1 was also a waitlisted member, as the society had 168 members to whom 168 plots were allotted and one plot was earmarked for establishment of a place of worship with the approval of the concerned authorities. It is in the year 2004 that respondent no.1 claims that he smelt some foul play and started communicating with the society, with the first communication emanating on 23.07.2004. Respondent no.1 further claims that as per his knowledge five plots were lying vacant and thus he continued his communications with the society, the last of which is dated 25.10.2007. Thereafter there is a hiatus period of about three years, before a legal notice is issued on 28.05.2010, inter alia, calling for copies of relevant resolutions but to no avail as, according to the petitioner-society, respondent no.1 was not admitted as its member vide resolution passed in the General Body Meeting held on 07.06.1992. In this meeting the enrolment of fourteen members by the Managing Committee vide resolutions dated 03.09.1989 and 18.02.1990 was held to be invalid and disapproved. Respondent no.1 thus prayed that the dispute be referred to arbitration that he is the bona fide member of the society and that his name could not be struck off from the list of members. He also sought a declaration that no copies of the resolution dated 07.06.1992 had been conveyed to him. The aforesaid application was contested by the petitioner-society. It was alleged that respondent no.1 was living in the house of his father in the colony, which he had since inherited on the demise of the father along with other legal heirs. Respondent no.1 is alleged to have remained silent for about fourteen years (between 1990 to 2004), whereafter he started the communications. Knowledge is imputed to respondent no.1 of all that has transpired and a specific plea was taken that the petition was barred by time as the period prescribed for limitation is six years.
(3.) WE may note that the relevant provision dealing with settlement of disputes is contained in Chapter VIII and Section 70 provides for reference of disputes to arbitration. Sub-section (4) provides for the period of limitation which reads as under: "SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES DISPUTES WHICH MAY BE REFERRED FOR ARBITRATION 70..... ... .... ... ... ... (4) (a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), but subject to the specific provisions made in this Act, the period of limitation in the case of a dispute referred to the Registrar under sub-section (1) shall � i)... ... ... ... ii) save as otherwise provided in sub-clause (iii), when the dispute relates to any act or omission on the part of any of the parties referred to in clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1), be six years from the date on which the act or omission with reference to which the dispute arose or took place. ........................ (b) The period of limitation in the case of any other dispute except those mentioned in the foregoing clause which are required to be referred to the Registrar shall be regulated by the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), as if the dispute was a suit and the Registrar a civil court. (c) Notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (a) and (b), the Registrar may admit a dispute after the expiry of the period of limitation, if the applicant satisfies the Registrar that he had sufficient cause for not referring the dispute within such period and the dispute so admitted shall be a dispute which shall not be barred on the ground that the period of limitation has expired." (emphasis supplied) ;