1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR C.R.A NO. 31/2010 Shri Chindhuji Raoji Patil vs. Shri Mukund Shankarrao Madankar and others =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-== Mr. Ambareesh Joshi, Counsel for Applicant, C ORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 8th JUNE, 2010. Heard. 2) In R.C.S. No. 1175/2008, application below Exh.11 was moved in terms of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, to reject the plaint or return the same, as a notice mandatorily warranted in terms of Section 164 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act was not served before lodging the plaint. 3) The learned counsel while agitating the point as to questioning the genuineness of the order, read prayer clause (2) of the plaint which in material terms illustrate seeking of injunction against defendant no.3 – Cooperative Society, thereby seeking permanent 2 injunction from entering upon the suit property and further to permanently restrain from disturbing peaceful occupation and possession of the suit property. 4) With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the plaint. Schedule of the property is described in paragraph 2. In paragraph 3, the nucleus of the property is indicated. Paragraph 4 illustrate that plot was owned by one Sampatrao Sitaram Bakal and purchased by the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 2/6/1979 and he has become the owner of the property admeasuring 750 sq.ft. The plaintiff has also purchased additional piece of land admeasuring 562.50 sq.ft. i.e. open land towards the West side of the plaintiff house from Shri Mahadeo Tapase, who happened to be the original purchaser from the society. The plaintiff asserts that he has become the owner of total 1312.50 sq.ft. of land. 5) In the entire body of the plaint, allegations are spelt out only against defendant no.2 and nothing is alleged against the Society. The innocuous prayer clause by itself will not be the cause to consider the relief in absence of pleadings. Since there is no pleading against the Society – defendant no.3, on this count, the objection to reject the plaint for want of notice in terms of Section 164 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies 3 Act was justifiably declined by the learned Court. 6) During the course of the submissions before the learned Judge, as is indicated in the unnumbered paragraph 4, the plaintiff has stated that no relief is claimed against defendant no. 3, no act of defendant no.3 is challenged and therefore, there is no necessity to issue notice under Section 164 of the Act. 7) The activities complained of are solely revolve against defendant no. 2 and the act of the society touching its business is not in dispute. The action of the learned Judge was justified. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order invoking power under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. Civil Revision Application lacks merit. Dismissed. No costs. (K.U.Chandiwal) JUDGE. Rvjalit