dgm gm gm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.7152 OF 2008 PETITION NO.7152 OF 2008 PETITION NO.7152 OF 2008 Prahladsingh Ramkhilavansingh, since deceased through heir and legal representative Mrs.Savitri Surender Singh Petitioner Vs. 1. Prashal Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. 2. Mr.Girijapati B. Sharma Respondents ALONG ALONG ALONG WITH WITH WITH WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.7149 OF 2008 PETITION NO.7149 OF 2008 PETITION NO.7149 OF 2008 Prahladsingh Ramkhilavansingh, since deceased through heir and legal representative Mrs.Savitri Surender Singh Petitioner Vs. 1. Prashal Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. 2. Mr.Ramsakal Vasudev Singh Respondents Ms.Asha N. Bhambwani for the petitioners. Ms.Kavita A. Shah i/b. Mr.Atul G. Damle and Mr.A.G.Shah for respondent no.2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : ANOOP V.MOHTA,J ANOOP V.MOHTA,J ANOOP V.MOHTA,J. DATED DATED DATED : 26th February,2009. : 26th February,2009. : 26th February,2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. In both these petitions the impugned order dated 14.08.2007 passed by the President of the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court at ( 2 ) Mumbai (Cooperative Appellate Court) in A.O. No.221/2006 and A.O. No.222/2006 and the order dated 4.7.2008 in Misc. Application No.185/2007 and Misc.Application No.186/2007 have been challenged by the same petitioners. Therefore, by this common order, both these petitions are being disposed of. 2. The Cooperative Appellate Court by the impugned order dated 14.08.2007 set aside the order dated 9.10.2006 passed by the trial court and application for intervention filed by the Applicants (Ramshakal V. Singh and Girijapati B. Sharma) have been allowed and directed the disputant Pralhadsingh, now deceased, through the petitioner’s legal representatives Mrs.Savitri Surender Singh to add them as party. Once the finding is given and as recorded that any decision with regard to the property in question, if it adversely affects the person interested including the applicants/appellants and as disputant has already raised the dispute against the dispute to honour its commitment and undertaking dated 10.1.2001 and restraining the society from allowing or giving possession of alternate premises to anybody else except the disputant and as dispute is also pending between the disputant and the applicants, in such litigation concerning the same property and to avoid ( 3 ) further complication and considering the principle Order 1, Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code and Section 94(3) of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, the grant of application, to avoid possibility of conflicting and/or collusive orders, the intervention application as allowed, without observing anything on the merit of the matter, in my view, need no interference. The order cannot be said to be perverse or bad in law. 3. The submission that appeals as filed were not maintainable is un-sustainable. No such ground was raised at the relevant time. The Court has passed the order after hearing both the parties. 4. With regard to the applications for delay as filed by the petitioners, legal heirs of original disputant to set aside the order and re-hear both the Appeal Nos.221/2006 and 222/2006 was rejected on the technical ground for want of signature and verification by the concerned persons and thereby rejected the said applications. There is delay of about three months, but the Cooperative Appellate Court at the same time decided the applications on merit also by observing that no sufficient case and/or ground is made out to condone the delay. Without ( 4 ) going further into the merits of the matter, I am also declining the applications for condonation of delay as rightly observed by the Cooperative Appellate Court that the applicants have every opportunity to appear in the said dispute and establish that she is the only legal heir and/or the property is exclusively bequeathed to her and others have no concern to the said disputed property. This requires a full-fledged evidence on merit. Therefore, in the interest of justice and for proper adjudication of the disputes as I am not inclined to interfere with the main order dated 14.08.2007 passed in the said Appeals, both these petitions filed by the petitioners are therefore dismissed. 5. Resultantly, both the above writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)