cawst15440-11.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION ST.NO.15440 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1952 OF 2011 Sukumar Enviro Farms Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. .. Applicants Versus Charan Kantilal Porwal & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Rajshekhar Govilkar for applicants Mr.Anurag Jain for respondent No.1. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 29th July 2011. P.C.: 1] With the consent of parties, this civil application is taken up for hearing. 2] The petitioners have challenged in revision application an order passed on 7th December 2010 by the competent authority and Dist. Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Pune in Application No.72 of 2009. That order cawst15440-11.doc 2 directs the authority under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 to register the proposed society Kumar Santosh Sakahari Coop.Housing Society under the said Act. Mr.Govilkar submits that the said society has now been registered and the petitioners, therefore, will have to challenge the registration of the said society. 2] In these circumstances, liberty may be granted to challenge the said orders of registration and all actions in pursuance thereof. According to Mr.Govilkar, the petitioners can be permitted to amend the petition and to include the challenge as that would not change the cause of action in any manner. Ultimately, the matters are arising out of the disputes between the applicants and those who have purchased the flats/ tenaments/ units from them. In these circumstances, there is no conflict and the orders made under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act so also the Cooperative Societies Act can be challenged in one petition as all the parties are same. That would avoid multiplicity of proceedings. cawst15440-11.doc 3 3] On the other hand, while opposing the amendment application it is contended by the contesting respondent No.1 that the amendment would change the entire cause of action, inasmuch as, the society is now registered and if the registration has to be challenged, there are remedies available in law. This petition may not be maintainable. Further, by virtue of registration, the challenge to the order passed by the competent authority is rendered infructuous. 4] After hearing both sides, I am of the opinion that the civil application deserves to be allowed. It is well settled that this Court while considering the application for amendment does not express any opinion on the merits of the amendment or the maintainability of the petition. It is not as if the objections raised by contesting respondent No.1 have been concluded in any manner because an order allowing amendment to the petition may be passed. It can always be clarified that the amendment is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of cawst15440-11.doc 4 parties and keeping open the objections to the maintainability of the petition as also the merits of the controversy. It is this course which I propose to adopt. I am of the opinion that the amendment will not cause any prejudice to the first respondent with the above clarification and finding that the object and purpose of this exercise is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, that the civil application is made absolute. The amendments are permitted. However, the permission to amend the petition is subject to the clarifications given above. All contentions in that behalf are kept open. Amendments to be carried out within two weeks from today. After the petition is amended, the same be placed before the appropriate court for admission. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)