bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 3625 OF 2004 PETITION NO. 3625 OF 2004 PETITION NO. 3625 OF 2004 Kameri Yedenipani Sahakari Pani Purvatha Sanstha Ltd. ... Petitioner v/s Jagdish Shamrao Patil & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Amit B. Borkar for the petitioner. Mr.S.N.Patil, A.G.P. for the respondent No.5. Mr.Anil Kumar Patil for the respondent No.12. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 22ND APRIL, 2009 22ND APRIL, 2009 22ND APRIL, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed in A.O. No.139 of 2002 on 11.3.2004 joining certain persons as appellants in the appeal. 2. The petitioner contends that a dispute was filed by certain agriculturists against the petitioner Society which was contested before the Co-operative Court. Certain other agriculturists sought to intervene in the dispute and that application was rejected. These applicants are respondent Nos.19, 24, 31, 32, 45, 51, 52, 81, 82, 102, 106, 126, 170 and 177 to the present 2 petition. The dispute was partly allowed and aggrieved by the decision of the Co-operative Court, the disputants filed an appeal before the Co-operative Appellate Court. While this appeal was pending, certain other persons, who are respondents to this petition, filed an application for intervention. This application is allowed and hence the present petition. 3. In my opinion, such an order could not have been passed by the Co-operative Appellate Court. The dispute arose because agriculturists, who were the disputants, contended that the petitioner Society had recovered certain amounts from the agriculturists in order to provide water to them. However, after taking the money, according to the disputants, they were not supplied any water for farming their lands. Such a dispute would require each disputant to prove his case that he, in fact, had paid the money to the Society and that water was not supplied to him, despite the payment of money. This cannot be done in an appeal as evidence would have to be led in the dispute itself. 4. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. However, the applicants in the appeal may, if so advised, file a separate dispute in accordance with law for redressal of their grievance. 3 5. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.