I/ I IN THE HIGH COURT KARNLTAKA AT BANGALORE. Dated this the 4th day of june 1998, Before THE HON’BLF !. JUSTICE ruMAR RAJARATNAl WR T PETITION No.11616 OF 1998, Between: Sri B.A Kulkirni ?F-jor Rio at No.181 Chidambarnagar, Belpauin. .. Petitioner, Sri NPSrishr’appa, ‘dvocate) And: 1, The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal III floor, M.S.Building Vidhana Veedhi Bangalore—1 by its Chairman. 2. The Aest, Registrar of Co—opera tive SDcietles, Belgaum Sub diviion Belgaum. 3. The Preardent, The Ch:dambarnagar Co—operative Housing Society Ltd.,Chidsmbarnagar BeIgaum, 4a T o Secretary, The Chidambarnagar Co—operative Housing Society, Chidambsrnagnr, Belgum. .. Respondents. (By Sri B. Veerappa, HCGP for R-1 and 2.) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct toe first respondent to pass orders on I.A filed by the peti t ioner u/s.151 CPC uestioniog the mai teina ility of the appeal at Anneure ‘C’. Further toquesh a4 Annexure B dtd: 9—3—98 by R—1. 4’ —2- This writ petition is coming on for Priy. hearing this day, the Court made the following: ORDE 1. The petitioner is a member of the fourth rerpond nt—society. The president of the society raised a dispute in Dispute No.AR/9/ABN/1172/90—91, at Annezure B. The second respondent dismissed the dispu’e because the society did not prosecute the dispute. 2. Aggrieved by that the president filed an application to set aside the order pased by tie seoond respondent and the sate was dismissed. Consequently the dispute was also dismissed. Aggriev d by the dismissal of the dispute the third respondent filed an appeal in No.443/93 before the first respondent. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the second respondent. The matter ent before the second respondent. Cnce again the society did not prosecute the dispute, and the dispute ‘as dismissed for non—prosnoution. 3. Aggrieved by this, the third respondent filed an applicati for setting aside the exparte I order. The same was so dismissed. Consequently, the dispute was dismissed. 4, Aggrieved by this the third respondent filed an appeal. The appellate ahitj ±thon found fault with the conduct of the society in not diligently prosecuting the dispute. However the appellate autho rity held that since the ailegationsof financial irregularities are ivoived the mater ought to be remitted back for fresh disposal in accordance with law, 5, Learned counsel for the petitionor submitted that before the appellate authority an LA. was filed by which it was submitted that the ex—president has no authority to file an acpeal and it was the secre tary who ought to have filed the same. According to the learned counsel for the petItioner this l.A. was not considered while dealing with the appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the petiti:ner further submitted that he hau suffered enough at the hands of the society since 1990 and neither the society nor he secretary is interested in . prosecuting the dispute. Therefore, it would be 1% sheer waste of time for the aooeilae authority to remand this matr back, before the second respondent. —4— He also submitted technically the president has no locus-standi to file an appeal. However the appellate authority the first respondent having remanded the matter back for fresh consi— daration it would not be proper for bis Court to interfere wish the order pa: sed by the first respondent, Since it was made clear by the fir: 4 respondent that all the contentions are left open including the one with regard to the msintainablity as to who should prosecute the disputeat ) 4vJv(r ‘“ 7. in that view of the matter no interference s called f or with reapect to the order passed by the first respondent, The matter is remitted back to ftc second resondent in aceordance with law, 8. There will be a direction directing the second respondint to ye one last pp rtunity to 7 the society to prosecute the dispute if they are it- interested, The second respondent shall mplete the enquiry and pass orders on the dispute within a period of two mpnths fr in tt daft of receipt of this order. t’.a&ar4g which in the facts and circum stances of the c tC the dispute shall stand automa tically dismissed without further ado. t 4 ‘he Writ Petition is dispo ed of aeooding1y here wfll be no order as to coste JUDGE ‘0 4