-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.1791 of 2008 Sarjerao Baburao Kibile ..Petitioner vs. 1. Sarvodaya Vividh Karyakari Sahakari (Vikas) Seva Sanstha Maryadit and anr. ..Respondents. Shri S.S.Patwardhan for petitioner. Shri A.A.Kumbhakoni i/b Shri Amit Borkar for respondent no.1. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 18th March, 2008 18th March, 2008 18th March, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. In my view, lower Appellate’s Court’s final order being worded in a manner it should not have been worded, does not mean that this Court should interfere in writ jurisdiction. Considering the controversy before the Court below, namely, whether 233 members could vote in one category or the other and dispute application proceeding on the basis that prima facie they have some voting rights there was no occasion for the Trial Court to have issued an injunction which by itself is very widely worded. It disposed of the dispute finally. The Trial Court has directed deletion of the -2- names of the persons in Schedule A and B from the borrowers list and include them in non borrowers list. Precisely that is the dispute pending before it. Reading of paras 7 to 9 of the order of the Trial Court makes it apparent. In such circumstances, the lower Appellate Court stepped in and set aside that order, permitted these members to vote and ultimately left it to the Trial Court to decide the dispute. These are matters, which are not admitted facts. There are several disputes and whether a fraud has been perpetriated and documents produced by the society are genuine or not needs to be gone into at the final hearing of the dispute. The lower Appellate Court has, therefore, rightly set aside the order of the Trial Court. 2. At this prima facie stage merely because 233 persons are allowed to cast their votes as borrower members does not mean that the case of the society in question is accepted. The directions of the lower Appellate Court with regard to their names continuing in the list of borrower members is only to enable them to vote at the ensuing election. That does not confer any rights on such persons finally. This is an interim arrangement. Therefore, the decision of -3- the society to permit them as borrower members and allow them to vote accordingly is subject to final orders in the dispute. All contentions of both sides in that behalf are kept open. Trial Court to endeavour and dispose of the dispute expeditiously. Petition is dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)