(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 6388 OF 2009 Dattatraya Govindrao Kamble, Age : 60 years, Occupation : Retired, R/o. Behind Old S.T. Deopt, .. Petitioner Osmanabad. (Original plaintiff) versus 1. Smt. Sakharbai d/o. Sakharam Adsul. .. Respondent no.1 deleted. 2. Jagannath Vishwanath Kale .. Petition withdrawn as against respondent 3. Jaichand Manikrao Jain. nos.2 and 3. 4. Smt. Kusum Limbraj Nannawre. 5. Satish Dhondiba Pende. 6. Mahadeo Narhari Mane. 7. Lahu Dagdu Sutar. .. Respondent no.7 deleted. 8. President, Shri Sant Rohidas Magaswargiya Mahila Sahakar Gruha Nirman Sanstha Ltd., .. Respondents Osmanabad. (Original defendants) ....................... (2) Mr. S.V. Natu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Respondent no.1 deleted. Petition withdrawn as against respondent nos.2 and 3. Mr. R.V. Naiknavare, Advocate, for respondent no.4. Mr. K.K. Kulkarni, Advocate, for respondent nos.5 and 6 Respondent no.7 deleted. Mr. M.A. Thorbole, Advocate, for respondent no.8. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 15TH MARCH 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. S.V. Natu, for the petitioner; Adv. Mr. R.V. Naiknavare, for respondent no.4; Adv. Mr. K.K. Kulkarni, for respondent nos.5 and 6, and Adv. Mr. M.A. Thorbole, for respondent no.8. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 23-7-2009, passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (Senior (3) Division), Osmanabad, below Exhibit 51 in Special Civil Suit No. 16/2006. 3. The trial court framed about 20 issues on 14-8-2008 in Special Civil Suit No. 16/2006. The respondent no.8 / defendant no.8 then moved application and sought trial of Issue No.8 as preliminary issue. That application has been allowed. Respondent / defendant no.8 is a Cooperative Society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and contention raised in defence is that, in view of provisions of Section 91 of the said Act, Civil Court has no jurisdiction. 4. Adv. Mr. Natu, for the petitioner, has urged that the petitioner has not claimed to be a member of the Society and land sometime in past was shown as belonging to Society. Therefore, respondent / defendant no.8 came to be added. No relief, as such, is claimed against that defendant. 5. Adv. Mr. M.A. Thorbole, for respondent no.8, supports the impugned order. According to him, as Cooperative Society is added as defendant and issue is already framed, the issue needs to be answered. 6. After hearing respective Counsel, I am satisfied that (4) all relevant aspects are looked into and the trial court has found trial of Issue No.8 necessary as preliminary issue. Parties are directed to lead evidence. I do not see any error or perversity. Defences available to the petitioner / plaintiff are not lost. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in this jurisdiction. 7. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp6388