1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7549 OF 2011 Vijaydurg Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Shri Sipriyan Joseph D’Souza & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.K.K.Jadhav for the Petitioner Mr.J.M.D’Silva for the Respondent No.1 CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 13th OCTOBER, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard learned Advocates on both sides . The suit was filed by the petitioners in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kalyan. After the death of Mr. D.R.Satya, the Secretary of the plaintiff, who had declared the plaint, the suit was being attended to by one Mr. Gogte appointed by the society by appropriate resolution, to prosecute the suit on behalf of the petitioners. At one stage the suit was dismissed. However, the suit came to be restored at later point of 2 time. However, the petitioners found it fit to include the name of Gogte as the person who would be able to attend to the suit. That application was rejected by order dated 12.8.2011. This order dated 12.8.2011 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kalyan is challenged. 2. After having heard learned Advocates on both sides, I am of the view that there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. In my view, for the following reasons the rejection of this application does not cause any prejudice to the petitioners. It is noticed that the suit filed by Vijaydurg Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. The petitioner Co-operative Society, duly registered under the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, is required to be treated as legal person and a person who is authorized by the society to prosecute the said suit can attend to the said suit. It is not necessary that every time when the office bearers of the society change, or the person who is authorized to prosecute the suit is changed, the said plaintiff society is required to bring the name of the new person on record. If today the petitioners have appointed some person by appropriate resolution to prosecute the said suit, said person will be able to prosecute the said 3 suit though his name does not appear in the plaint. Hence there is no need to interfere in the impugned order. 3. Petition is disposed of with aforesaid explanation. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)