{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.155 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10678 OF 2011 Shreehari Associates Pvt.Ltd., through Sachin Madhukar Muley, age: 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o Saicharan, Gat No.41, Golewadi, Paithan Road, Aurangabad. Appellant Versus 1 Proposed Pallavi Sahakari Co-op. Housing Society, through its Chief Promoter Kaluram Savlaram Pawar, age: major, Occ: Rtd. Govt. servant, R/o S.T.Colony, Fazalpura, Aurangabad & others Respondents Mr. S.G.Karlekar, advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.R.Vakil, advocate for respondents no.3 & 4. Mr.M.D.Narwadkar, advocate for respondent no.17. CORAM : S.S.SHINDE, J. DATE : 19 th September, 2011 PER COURT: 1 Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that Respondent No.1 Society is a proposed Co-operative Housing Society. The sale deed is executed in the year 1986. Till date, no steps have been taken by the Respondents for registration of the {2} society and no application is filed for registration. Learned Counsel for the appellant has invited my attention to sub-section (19) (a) of Section 2 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Relying on the said provision, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that "member" means a person joining in an application for the registration of a co-operative society which is subsequently registered, or a person duly admitted to membership of a society after registration and includes a nominal, associate or sympathiser member. However, In the instant case, since the Society is not registered, persons are not enrolled as members. As a result, they don't have any personal interest as such. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further invited my attention to Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act and submitted that if the plaintiff has no personal interest, as a matter of fact, the injunction should have been refused. In support of this contention, learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the reported judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Premji Ratansey Shah and others Vs. Union of India and others, reported in 1995 AIR SCW 2425 and in particular paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said judgment. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, injunction should not have been clamped against the appellant. He, therefore, submits that this Appeal from Order deserves consideration. 3 On the other hand, learned Counsel for the {3} Respondents, has invited my attention to para 22 of the impugned order and submitted that sufficient evidence was produced on record by the respondents to show that they are in possession of the suit property. It is further submitted that 7/12 extracts of the suit property were placed on record which show that the plaintiffs are in possession from 1987-88. The trial Court has considered the documents produced on record by the respondents and after considering the 7/12 extracts, found that the respondents are in possession of the suit property since 1987-88. Learned Counsel has further invited my attention to para 6 of the impugned order and submitted that the plaintiffs have filed an appeal bearing No. 77/2010 before the District Collector at Aurangabad challenging the entries in the names of original defendants no.1 and 2. In the said appeal, stay has been granted by the Collector and appeal is listed for hearing today before the Collector. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel appearing for Respondents – original plaintiffs, order passed by the III Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, needs no interference by this Court. 4 I have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel for respective parties. The statement made by the Counsel for the appellant that no application has been filed by Respondent No.1 for registration of the society, is disputed by the Counsel for respondents. He submits that such application is already filed before the competent authority. {4} 5 Apart from filing such application by the respondents, the trial Court has considered the evidence brought on record and found that prima facie case is made out by the plaintiffs to grant such injunction. The trial Court has also considered the submissions of the appellant – original defendant that there is protection available to the plaintiffs under the provisions of Transfer of Properties Act. However, in the facts of this case, the trial Court came to the definite conclusion that injunction is required to be granted. Though it is strenuously contended by the Counsel for appellants that the members i.e. Respondents No.2 to 15 have no personal interest, such argument is required to be accepted cautiously and that is a matter for trial. The formation of a Co-operative Society itself is in the interest of the persons. At this stage, it cannot be said that Respondents No.2 to 15 are not interested persons or they don’t have any personal interest as such. The trial Court found that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property since 1987-88 and in my considered view, rightly passed the impugned order in the facts of this case. No interference is, therefore, warranted. 6 This Appeal from Order along with Civil Application stand rejected. S.S.SHINDE adb/ao15511 JUDGE