1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3053 OF 2008 1. Shri Gurmit Singh Saigal & ors. Petitioners vs. 1. Preet Nagar Sahakari Griharachana Sanstha Maryadit & anr. Respondents Mr.R.S.Apte i/b.Mr.N.R.Bubna for the petitioners. Mr.G.S.Godbole with Mr.S.S.Kanetkar for respondent no.1. Mr.C.J.Sawant, Senior Advocate with Mr.V.C.Ghosalkar for respondent no.2. CORAM : R.V. MORE,J. DATED : 10th July, 2008 P.C. Heard Mr.Apte, the learned counsel for the petitioners,Mr.Girish Godbole, the learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Mr.C.J.Sawant, the learned Senior counsel for respondent no.2. 2. The petitioners have filed Dispute No.99/07 before the Cooperative Court for declaration that they are entitled for possession of plot no.1 in the capacity of legal heirs of late Shri Gharjit Singh Saigal, who was founder member of respondent no.1-society. A declaration was also sought to the effect that the development agreement between respondents 1 and 2 is void ab initio and claimed permanent injunction against 2 the respondents from carrying out construction or parting with possession of the suit plot. 3. The petitioners took out interim application at Exhibit "5" in the above said dispute, restraining the respondents from carrying out construction, parting with possession and/or creating any third party interest in the suit plot. 4. The learned trial Judge of Cooperative Court No.1 by its order dated 29.6.2007 granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners as claimed and, therefore, two separate Appeals being Appeal Nos.113/2007 and 116/2007 came to be filed by the respondents. Both these Appeals came to be disposed of by a common order by the Member of the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Mumbai Bench, at Pune by his order dated 19.03.2008. Both these Appeals came to be allowed and the trial Court’s order below Exhibit "5" was quashed and set aside. 5. The Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court concluded that the petitioners are not entitled for temporary injunction as claimed on two counts. Firstly, the petitioners have not made out prima facie case inasmuch as they failed to show that the dispute is maintainable under Section 91 of the Cooperative 3 Societies Act and secondly, the respondents will suffer irreparable loss and balance of convenience is also in their favour. 6. Mr.Apte, the learned counsel for the petitioners, in this regard, relied upon the provisions of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and submitted that the dispute is maintainable by virtue of Section 91 (1)(b) as the petitioners are persons claiming through father, whose name appears at Sr. No.1 of the application for registration and some payment was shown against name of his father. 7. Per contra, Mr.Sawant, the learned senior counsel for no.2 and Mr.Godbole, the learned counsel respondent no.1 have submitted that the father of the petitioners died in the year 1989 and respondent no.1-society was registered in the year 1997 and, therefore, contended that the petitioners father cannot be said to be founder member. 8. Having regard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the impugned order, I do not find any merit in the petition. I agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents. In that view of the matter, no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 4 9. However, in the interest of justice, the trial Court, i.e. Cooperative Court, shall dispose of the petitioners Dispute No.99/07 as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of one year from the date of receipt of this order. Needless to mention, the trial Court shall dispose of the Dispute independently and without being influenced by this order or by the order impugned in this petition. 10. Needless to further mention that the development and/or construction by respondent no.2 shall be subject to final outcome of the Dispute No.99/07. [R.V. [R.V. [R.V. MORE,J.] MORE,J.] MORE,J.]