The liberty was granted by the Division Bench to dispose of the above-mentioned application being IA No.9770/2011 without being influenced by the impugned order.8.2 Being aggrieved by the illegal and criminal actions of the office bearers of the Society, defendant no. 3 made representations at the office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies but there was no effective action.Thereafter defendant no.3 had sent a representation to the Lt. Governor of Delhi requesting his intervention also requesting Lt. Governor to direct the Society to continue him as regular and bonafide member.Hence defendant no. 3 filed an arbitration petition being 37/JR1/CH/92-93 before the Registrar Cooperative Societies Act claiming that he had not resigned from membership of the Society and he did not have any disqualification under any provision of law and thereby he is a regular and bonafide member of the Society.8.7 Defendant no. 3 also contends that the office bearers have played fraud on him.The office bearers have also put up a false case that Paras Nath Pathak is not the one and the same person and that the real Paras Nath Pathak had resigned from membership.Allegations are also made that Mr. Shekhar Vashisht played an instrumental role in the sale proceedings for some ulterior motive as the purchaser was his mother in law, the plaintiff herein.8.20 The Society wrote a letter bearing No. UCGHS/GK/08-01/05 dated 31.08.2005 to DDA knowing about the status of the Flat No. B-Thereafter Society took possession of the said flat vide its letter dated 14.02.2006 and intimated certain information to DDA.By this order, I propose to decide the third application filed by the plaintiff, bearing I.A. No.9770/2011 filed under Section 94 read with Order XXXIX, Rules 1, 2 & 3 CPC.It is the admitted position that the plaintiffs earlier applications, both under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 CPC bearing I.A. No.4897/2007 & I.A. No.7083/2008 were dismissed vide order dated 20.09.2010 and the ex-parte injunction order granted on 11.08.2008 was vacated.The said order was passed by the Court after hearing both the parties.Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an appeal against the said order, bearing FAO(OS) No.117-18/2011 before the Division Bench, which was dismissed as withdrawn.The parties were also granted liberty to raise their all respective contentions.Thus, the learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the present application is maintainable on the grounds of fresh cause of action and the same be disposed of.The Plaintiff's CaseThe plaintiff filed the present suit under Sections 31, 33 & 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for declaration, and in the alternative, claiming a compensation to the tune of Rs.82,16,000/- from the defendants apart from other reliefs.4.2 The plaintiff submits that the defendant No. 2 had issued a No Objection Certificate dated 29.12.2003 in favour of defendant No.1 and consequently, the said flat was allotted in her favour.Thereafter, the defendant No.1 got the said flat registered in her favour.The said I.A. No.9770/2011 in CS(OS) No.774/2007 Page No.2 of 21 property was then converted from lease-hold to free-hold vide registered deed dated 24.08.2004 making the defendant No.1 the absolute owner.4.3 Defendant No.1 now being the absolute owner of the said property and being in possession thereof entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff and executed a Sale Deed dated 09.05.2005 and by virtue of the same, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the property.Thereafter defendant No. 1 & 2 started claiming that defendant No.1 had, in fact, ceased to be a member of the Society and hence not entitled to the said flat.The plaintiff states that there is absolutely no relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants.The defendant No.1 had conveyed a deed in favour of plaintiff, by the title paramount and 4.5 There were no proceedings initiated qua cancellation of the said Sale Deed and a duly registered document cannot be superseded or become non-existence by an executive action/order and in the absence of a registered document.4.6 The plaintiff also submits that the communication dated 16.3.2007 on the face of it is null and void and is any event an outcome of connivance of defendant No. 1 & 2 as the flat in question continues to be vested upon the plaintiff as she is the lawful/legal owner as she had got the flat legally and with proper procedure.4.7 Alongwith the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application for interim relief.Ex-parte order granted on 11.08.2008 and was vacated vide order dated 20.09.2010 after hearing the parties.While dismissing the interim applications filed by the plaintiff, the Court has dealt with submission of the parties and given its findings in paragraphs-15 to 20 of the order which are against the plaintiff.The same read as under:-In other words, the entire thrust of the plaint of the plaintiff is that the defendant no.1 did not have the title to the property and yet she sold the same in favour of the plaintiff and consequently, she became a victim of fraud and yet she wants to be declared as bonafide purchaser.In view of the order passed by the Division Bench, now the plaintiff is insisting for an interim order in the second application being IA No.9770/2011 i.e. for same relief.I.A. No.9770/2011 in CS(OS) No.774/2007 Page No.6 of 21It is argued by the plaintiff that the documents executed in his favour would show that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies is not vested with any jurisdiction to allow allotment of the said flat.It is stated that under the garb of the communication, no third party right can be created of the said flat depriving the rights of the plaintiff.The plaintiff also submits that if defendant No.2 acts on the basis of the communication dated 13.05.2011, then the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and hence prayed for status quo.The matter was assigned to the Assistant Registrar Cooperatives Society.Defendant no. 3 filed an appeal against the order of Assistant Registrar before the Presiding Officer of Delhi Cooperative Tribunal.The same was dismissed on the ground that the writ petition was filed on disputed question of facts.8.8 With regard to that Paras Nath Pathak submitted a representation at the concerned police station and asked the police officials to register a F.I.R. but the police officials refused to register an F.I.R. Defendant No.3 claims that the police officials were under the influence from the office bearers.On 14.12.2002 Sri Paras Nath Pathak gave a written complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Police Head Quarter, I.P. Extension requesting them to register a complaint against the office bearers of the Society for fabrication of documents, criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts.I.A. No.9770/2011 in CS(OS) No.774/2007 Page No.9 of 21 8.9 Despite the representations no complaint/F.I.R was registered by the police or the CBI.Hence defendant no. 3 approached the High Court and filed a Writ Petition being W.P (Crl) No. 26/2005 for issuance of a direction to the State to register and F.I.R. in this regard.8.10 Pursuant to the directions of the High Court, an enquiry u/s 55 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act was initiated and Shri S.M. Agarwal, ADJ (Retired) was appointed as Enquiry Officer.The High Court vide its order dated 21.03.2006 in W.P. (Crl) No. 26/2005, directed the DCP, EOW Cell Delhi Police to take up enquiry and file report within four weeks.8.11 Pursuant to the orders dated 21.03.2006 by the High Court a F.I.R. was registered being No. 133 dated 19.04.2006 under sections 420, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was conducted by Insp.S.S. Gill and the Writ Petition was disposed of.8.12 Thereafter, defendant no. 3 approached the Registrar of the Cooperatives Society and wanted to opt for his legitimate claim on a flat in the housing society.8.13 Defendant no. 3 again approached the Court for clarification of the order dated 26.04.2001 and the Court vide order dated 17.08.2007 passed in C.M. No. 10539/2007 in W.P. (C ) No. 2614 of 2001 has observed "having considered the materials on record I am of the opinion that no clarification is required to be made; the events relied on are all subsequent to the dismissal of the petition and therefore if the petitioner has any remedies available in law it is open for him to pursue the same.the order dated 26.04.2001 was on the basis of that adjudication in the writ petition entails investigation into the disputed questions of facts; there was no decision on merits of the case"8.14 Hence defendant no. 3 approached the Registrar of Cooperative Society for confirmation of his membership and allotment of his flat B- 47, the only vacant flat.A detailed proceedings went on at the office of the Registrar who vide order 16.04.2008 approved the report of Enquiry Office Shri S.M. Aggarwal and membership of defendant no. 3 was approved.8.15 It is also alleged that a Writ Petition being W.P. (C) No. 4324/2008 titled as Seema Bijlani Vs.Registrar Cooperative Societies & Ors was filed before this Court to frustrate the claim of defendant no. 3 and he was not made a party.I.A. No.9770/2011 in CS(OS) No.774/2007 Page No.11 of 21 8.16 A publication was made in the two daily newspapers namely Statesman, Rashtriya Sahara dated 23rd July 2008 for draw of a flat (B-47) any persons having any objections may submit representation to Assistant Registrar within 15 days of the said publication.In the meanwhile a suit was filed by the plaintiff against Smt. Gayatri Kukreja.Thereafter DDA vide letter dated 16.03.2007 that the Deed of Conveyance dated 24.08.2004 stands cancelled by the L.G. of Delhi.Reply of Defendant No.2 SocietyDefendant No. 2 has also filed reply to the application, stating therein that the plaintiff is not the owner of the flat as alleged.The flat in fact was allotted to Smt. Gayatri Kukreja who through proceedings initiated against her, submitted her resignation and the same was accepted by the Registrar Cooperative Societies.9.1 After knowing of this fact, Mr. Shekhar Vashist, son in law of the plaintiff and a member of the society manipulated the documents for getting flat done to free hold as DDA organized a Riverside camp in Mayur Vihar Phase I and converted the said flat from lease hold to I.A. No.9770/2011 in CS(OS) No.774/2007 Page No.13 of 21 freehold.It is alleged that a manipulation was done by Mr. Vashist and the flat was sold at a throw away price for a consideration of Rs. 7.90 lac as against the proper market value of 30 lac who was fully aware of the fact that defendant No. 2 Smt. Gayatri Kukreja had already resigned from the membership.9.2 The plaintiff had intentionally not stated all the facts in the matter despite of having knowledge of all the facts.The alleged NOC dated 29.12.2003 was never issued by defendant no. 2 but a mere manipulation of documents by Mr. Vashist who also witnessed the conveyance deed.9.3 The defendant no. 1 gave her resignation from the membership of the Society and hence had no title to the said flat.Defendant no. 2 till date is the owner of the flat and plaintiff has no right whatsoever.The defendant No. 2 states that Mr. Shekhar Vashist is the owner of flat no. D-139 in the society and his wife (daughter of the plaintiff) is residing in flat no. C-92, both in the society.Infact there was collusion between plaintiff and Mr. Shekhar Vashist and the documents were manipulated.The plaintiff got a stay in CS (OS) No. 774 of 2007 but after detailed arguments the stay was vacated.The plaintiff also filed a review application but the same was also dismissed.The plaintiff I.A. No.9770/2011 in CS(OS) No.774/2007 Page No.14 of 21 also filed an appeal against the vacating of stay order but that too was dismissed.The same read as under:-The plaintiffs preferred an appeal being FAO (OS) No.281/2008 against the dismissal of first application for interim relief.

Relevant sections: Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code