1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10597 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10597 OF 2010 *** 1. Heard Senior Advocate Shri Shah with Advocate Shri H. S. Bedi for the Petitioner. Advocate Shri S. B. Ghute for Respondent No. 1. Service upon Respondent No.2 is dispensed with as it is a formal party, according to respective counsel. 2. Short grievance made by senior Advocate Shri Shah is on the basis of a contract between Petitioner and Respondent No.1. Drip Irrigation Systems have been provided to members of Respondent no.1 and as per contract, amount therefor is to be released by Respondent No.1 through Respondent No.2 bank. As the amount was not released, Dispute under section 91 for recovery has been filed. In that dispute, evidence of Petitioner/ disputant is already over. Then, Respondent No.1 filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. contending that the actual 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10597 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. beneficiaries of Drip Irrigation Systems, about 246 in number should be added. The Cooperative Court rejected that application and in Revision, by impugned order, Cooperative Appellate Court allowed it. According to learned Senior Advocate, there is no privity of contract between those beneficiaries and petitioner and also there is no cause of action against them. 3. Shri Ghute has invited attention to the judgment of Honourable Apex Court in the case of "State of Kerala V/s W.I.Services and Estates Ltd. and others" reported in AIR 1999 S.C. 562 to urge that Honourable Court, therein, has found such beneficiaries necessary parties. He further contends that as Drip Irrigation Systems were to be provided to these persons, their presence is essential. He invites attention to reason given by Cooperative Appellate Court that otherwise the Respondent No.1 bank will be 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10597 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. required to recover the amount from the beneficiaries. 4. After hearing learned counsel I find reason given by Cooperative Appellate Court totally unsustainable. It is not the defence of Respondent No.1 that Drip Irrigation Systems were not supplied or the same were defective. Therefore, there is no question of Respondent No.2 bank recovering anything from the so called beneficiaries. The judgment of Honourable Apex Court shows that the persons selected for fuel linkage, as per the selection policy adopted by central Government, were affected and hence they were found to be necessary parties. Here, that is not the case at all. 5. The petitioner/ disputant has to stand on its legs and contract between it and Respondent No.1. If the case is not made out or then on merits cooperative court finds that necessary parties are not joined, the 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10597 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. dispute is liable to be dismissed. No order, to the prejudice of such parties, not present before the Court, can be passed. 6. I, therefore, find entire consideration of controversy by Cooperative Appellate Court in its judgment dated 27th August, 2010 unsustainable. Accordingly, said order is quashed and set aside. Revision No.13 of 2010 is hereby rejected. The order of Cooperative Court dated 6th February, 2010, passed below Exhibit-149 in Dispute No.CCO/ 260/04 is hereby restored. Petition allowed. No costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:31/01/2011. ans/10597