1 CIV.R.A. NO.116 of 2007 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 116/2007 with CA/5038/2008 In CRA/116/2007 (Satwa s/o Bhoja Bagate through General Power of Attorney Shankar s/o Satwa Bagate vs. Vishakhabai Gokuldas Hatkar and others) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. V.B.Anjanwatikar, Adv., h/f Mr. V.D.Hon, Adv., for petitioner. Miss M.R.Jamdade, Adv., for R.1. Mr. N.D.Sonwane, Adv., for R.Nos. 2 & 7. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:8-12-2010 1. Heard. Concurrent findings in favour of the respondents, confirming her membership/allotment in respect of Plot No.5-C by the Cooperative Housing society for an area admeasuring 30 fts. East West and 50 fts. North South is questioned in the revision application. 2. Learned Counsel for the revisional applicant, he 2 CIV.R.A. NO.116 of 2007 referred RCS No.544/1985 between him as plaintiff and the Cooperative Society and a compromise therein, resulting in execution proceeding ( RD No. 111/1985, dt.25.6.1990), however, same was tested in Regular Civil Appeal No.193/1992 before the learned District Judge and the said orders in RCS No.544/1985 were quashed. It was observed by the learned District Judge that the compromise having taken place between the petitioner and the cooperative society will not be mitigating and squeezing rights of the respondent over plot No.5- C. 3. The learned Judge of the Cooperative Court and the learned Judge of the Cooperative Appellate Court, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad, elaborately discussed the documentation and also the evidence. The status of the present petitioner Satwa and his brother Limbaji was questioned as the certificate tendered on record below Exh.132 and 133 was 3 CIV.R.A. NO.116 of 2007 found not disclosing the month, year and date of allotment of the plot in his favour. The certificates could not be attributed to one relating to Plot No.5-C thereby depriving the present respondent from her rights vested in the plot. It is pertinent, there is Resolution No.6 on record dt.18.12.1988 regarding transfer of plot by - Baliram Chudaman Dhage and confirmed by the society. 4. Taking survey of all the above facts, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the orders recorded against the petitioner. Civil Revision Application lacks merit, dismissed. No costs. Civil Application dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/116-07cra