1. ' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.-This is a petition filed by Bahadur Yar Jang Co-operative Housing Society Limited challenging the order of respondent No,
7. The brief facts are that Mirza Khurshid Baig was a member of the Society to whom a plot was allotted. After his death respondents Nos. 1-4 who are legal heirs of Khurshid Baig approached the petitioner society for mutation of the plot in their name but it was refused by the Petitioner. Consequently the legal representatives filed arbitration application under section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 before the Deputy Registrar which was referred to the Registrar's nominee for adjudication. By award dated 4th September, 1979 he ordered the Society to make mutation in favour of respondents 1-4. The petitioner challenged the award under section 56 of the Act on the ground that according to bye-law No, 7 the petitioner society is confined to the persons who belong to Hyderabad Deccan and as the deceased did not belong to Hyderabad Deccan he was not eligible for membership. This appeal was dismissed in default on 11th November, 1980. The petitioner then preferred a revision petition under section 64-A of the Co-operative Societies Act before respondent No, 7 which was dismissed on 7th. March, 1982.
2. ' For the revisional order passed by respondent No, 7 it is clear that the appeal was fixed before the respondent No, 6 on 29th October, 1980 but no one attended on behalf of the petitioner and that the Advocate for the petitioner had notice of this date of hearing. Again when the matter was fixed on 11th November, 1980 and no one appeared the respondent No, 6 dismissed this appeal.
3. ' Mr. Azhar Ali Siddiqui for the petitioner has not been able to show any ground on the basis of which it can be said that the order passed by the Deputy Registrar was without jurisdiction or without lawful authority. The respondent No, 7, therefore, lawfully dismissed the revision application and in the facts and circumstances of the case no interference can be made with the order passed by respondent No, 6.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that as Khurshid Baig did not belong to Hyderabad Deccan he could not become a member of the petitioner and hence the allotment made to him was not proper.
5. ' From the revisional order it is clear that he was enrolled as member in the year 1949 and plot was allotted in 1959. He died in the year 1961. During this period of about more than one decade no objection was raised about the eligibility of the membership of the deceased. The petitioner would have enrolled him as a member and allowed to continue as such only after having ascertained his bona fides. It seems unjust and inequitable that after his death his legal representatives may be penalised on the allegation that the deceased did not belong to Hyderabad Deccan.
6. ' In view of these reasons the Petition was dismissed in limine.