1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Letters Patent Appeal No.26 of 2007 M/s.Govinda Hotel Appellant Vs. Dahisar Jyoti CHS Ltd. Respondent Mr.Shishir Joshi for appellant. Mr.Bharat Pathak i/b. Mr.L.C.Joshi for respondent. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & A.P.DESHPANDE,JJ. September 26, 2008. P.C. 1. By consent the LPA is heard for final hearing. 2. The appellant is the original disputant in Dispute No. CC/IV/211of 2000 filed under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. the said dispute was decreed on 24/4/2003 and though the respondent before the Co-operative Court was represented through an Advocate, no Written Statement was filed. Call the said decree as an ex-parte decree an application which came to be registered as Misc. Application No.16 of 2004 was filed before the Co-operative Court for restoration of the dispute, on or about 3/3/2004 and the said application was rejected on 27/1/2005. 2 3. The present respondent thereafter filed Appeal No.59 of 2005 before the Co-operative Appellate Court and challenged the award and decree dated 24/4/2003 as well as the order dated 27/1/2005 by which the restoration application was rejected. The lower Appellate Court was pleased to reject the appeal filed by the respondents as per the order dated 21/7/2005. Not being satisfied the respondents preferred Review application No.2 of 2006 in Appeal No.59 of 2005 and the same was dismissed on 21/8/2006. 4. The respondents approached this Court in Writ Petition No.8300 of 2006 challenging the order passed by the lower Appellate Court on 21/7/2005 as well as 21/8/2006. the said writ petition was partly allowed and the respondents were permitted to file Written Statement in the dispute before the Co-operative Court. This order passed by the learned Single Judge on 8/1/2007 is a subject matter of challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and we have noted that the appeal filed by the respondents was dismissed on merits on 21/7/2005 and the review petition filed also met with 3 the same results as per the order dated 21/8/2006. Unless the order passed by the lower Appellate Court was set aside, there would be no occasion to restore and remand the original dispute filed by the respondents and allow the respondents to file written statement therein. We are, therefore, satisfied that Writ Petition No.8300 of 2006 is required to be restored so that it is decided on merits against the order passed on 21/7/2005 dismissing the appeal filed by the respondents as well as the order dated 21/8/2006 by which their review petition was dismissed. 6. Hence the LPA is partly allowed and the order dated 8/1/2007 passed in Writ Petition NO.8300 of 2006 is set aside. The said petition is restored to the file for being decided afresh on merits against the challenge to the order dated 21/7/2005 and 21/8/2006 passed by the lower Appellate Court. (A.P.DESHPANDE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)