1 IN THE LHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1007/2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6039/2003 Ratnamala Bapurao Kadam PETITIONER VS. Yeshwant Ghadgenagar Co-op.Hsg.Society Ltd.& Ors. RESPONDENTS Yeshwant Ghadgenagar Co-op.Hsg.Society APPLICANT Ltd.& Ors. Mr.Rajeev Singh with Mr.Sameer chitnis i/b Chitnis & Co.for the applicant. Mr.V.S.Kapse for the Petitioner Mr.S.K.Jain for Res.2 & 3 CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J. DATE : 13 TH MARCH,2009 P.C. . This Civil Application is filed by the Society in Writ Petition no.6039/2003 for clarification of the status which is ordered by the Single Bench by order dated 9/12/ 2005 . By the said order the Single Judge has directed the contestant parties who claimed to be the members of the respondent society to maintain status quo . The petitioner in Writ Petition no.6039/2003 and respondent no.2 are the siblings who inherited plot and a structure standing on the plot from their deceased mother. 2 Their mother was admittedly the member of the society and after her death there is dispute between the petitioner sister and the respondent brother regarding the membership of the society. The parties have filed suit for partition before the Civil Court Pune and is pending. 2] In between an issue as to who is going to be the member of the society was raised before the Single Judge and while deciding that issue the Single Judge has ordered to maintain the staus quo and has specifically mentioned that rights of parties regarding membership will be decided subject to the outcome of the final decision of the suit pending before the Civil Court. The original petitioner and respondent no.2 have filed their affidavit in reply in this Civil Application. As per the petitioner, the petitioner was accepted as a member of the society and she was shown on record as a member of the society when the order of status quo was passed.The learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.2 has drawn my attention to the order passed by the Division Bench dated 26.6.2006 wherein the similar issue of membership was raised and the order passed by the Single Judge dated 9/12/2005 was maintained . My attention was drawn to paragraph-9, affidavit in reply of respondent no.2 page-23 of the petition to understand the exact status of the parties in the scenario of the said membership of the society. 3] It is necessary to mention the previous litigation and the orders passed therein. It appears from the order passed by the Division Bench dated 26/6/2006 that by order dated 26/2/2001 the 3 Deputy Registrar declared the original petitioner sister as a deemed member and she was taken as a full member by the resolution dated 7/5/2001. However,the said order was challenged before the Divisional Joint Registrar in the Revision and the Divisional Joint Registrar by his order dated 10/7/2003 allowed the Revision Application and set aside the order dated 26/2/2001. 4] On this backdrop the averments in paragraph-10 of the Civil Application have to be considered. The society in pursuance of the said order dated 10/7/2003 admitted respondent no.2 as a member of respondent no.1. Thereafter it appears that till 9/12/2005 no change had taken place in the status of membership.Thus,the clarification of the status quo as per order dated 9/12/2005 is clearly mentioned by respondent society in fact in its own Civil Application and the society has to stick to that. With a view to make the position explicitly unambiguous it is further clarified that by order dated 9/12/2005 respondent no.2 remains a member of the society and that is the meaning of the status quo,and it is subject to the outcome of the partition suit pending at Pune and as specifically mentioned in the order dated 9/12/2005. (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.)