Lsp IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2426 OF 2008 Bhupesh M. Rathod & Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. Dharmendra Jain & ors. ...Respondents Kishor V. Tembe a/w. Madhavi Nalawade for petitioners. M.N.Bhadrashete for resopndents 1 to 6. V.D.Patil for respondent no.8. Pradeep Jadhav, AGP for respondent no.9. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : 21st November, 2008 : 21st November, 2008 : 21st November, 2008 P.C. . Heard Counsel for the parties. For the stand taken by the Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 6-original applicants before the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appeal Court it is not necessary to examine the correctness of the decision which is impugned in this writ petition. According to petitioners only party to the proceedings have right to file appeal under Section 97 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. A person who is not party to the main proceedings cannot pursue remedy of appeal under Section 97. Counsel for the respondents 1 to 6-original applicants before the Appeal Court submits that in that case the applicants would first apply to the Cooperative Court for being impleaded as party respondent in Dispute No. CC-II/107/2007. After they are impleaded as respondent 2 to the main proceedings in the capacity of party to the proceedings, they may be permitted to apply for recall of order dated 19th April, 2007 which application can be moved in the first instance before the Cooperative Court itself. If this stand of the respondents 1 to 6-applicants is accepted then no other question is required to be answered in the present petition. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that petitioners have no objection if the respondents 1 to 6 were to take recourse of such remedy. However, all questions relating to the locus of the applicants to be impleaded as respondents in the main proceedings and even on merits of the controversy involved may be left open to be decided by the Cooperative Court. There is no difficulty in accepting this counter suggestion given by the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of on clear understanding that respondents 1 to 6 shall in the first place prefer application for impleadment as party respondent in the main application pending before the Cooperative Court. Depending on the outcome of the said application, the respondents 1 to 6 herein will be entitled to apply for recall of order dated 19th April, 2007. Both these applications to be filed by the respondents 1 to 6 herein will have to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. All questions in that behalf are left open. 3 2. In view of this, Counsel for respondents 1 to 6 submits that he would not press the proceedings before the Appeal Court notwithstanding the order in their favour dated 16th September, 2008. Those proceedings will stand withdrawn. Thereafter, the said respondents would file appropriate application before the Cooperative Court. That assurance is accepted. . Petition disposed of on the above terms. [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]