-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.151 of 2008 1. Mr Ramchandra G Ramdhumal; and anr. .. Appellants. (Orig.Petitioners) Vs Shri K.Bhaskar Shetty, since deceased, through LRs: 1A Prithviraj Bhaskar Shetty and anr. .. Respondents Mr A.Y.Sakhare, senior counsel i/b M/s Y.K.S.Legal for the appellants. Mr V.B.Rajure for the respondents. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. DATE : 25/07/2008 DATE : 25/07/2008 DATE : 25/07/2008 PC: PC: PC: 1. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 5/11/2003 thereby rejecting summarily Writ Petition No.2821 of 2003. 2. We have gone through the impugned order which, in our considered opinion, is well reasoned. 3. The opponent-society was registered in the year 1971 and PW 2 Pitambar Randive was Secretary from 1971 till January 1985. In his deposition before the Co-operative Court in Dispute Application No.1183 of 1986 -2- he admitted that originally there were 34 members and out of them 18 members had submitted their resignations. Due to the poor financial condition of the members, the society was unable to collect funds and, therefore, the building funds could not be collected so as to proceed with the construction. However, in the year 1974 the society had entered into an agreement for construction with M/s Jitendra Construction and one Mr Shukla was one of the partners of the said construction company. He further stated that the builder was authorised to enroll additional members irrespective of their caste and creed, save and except, the 14 members who did not submit their resignations and accordingly the builder had enrolled 18 members. The original respondent-disputant is one of them. 4. We have also noticed that during pendency of the dispute before the Co-operative Court, by way of an interlocutory order, flat no.11 was directed to be kept reserved and it was not to be allotted to anyone. Despite this injunction the society proceeded to pass a general body resolution and allotted the flat to some other person and violated the injunction order. The factum of the respondent becoming the member of the society, the allotment of shares and payment of construction costs for flat no.11 admeasuring 589 sq.ft have been concurrently -3- recorded by the Co-operative Court as well as Cooperative Appellate Court. Even in the affidavit filed by the Chairman of the society on 31.3.1990 he has categorically stated that one flat was reserved for the disputant as per the court’s order dated 28.10.1986 and in total breach of the said order and the assurance given by the Chairman of the society the first petitioner who was a member of the Managing Committee was allotted the said reserved flat. 5. We are, therefore, satisfied that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record and this appeal does not deserve to be entertained. 6. Hence, the Letters Patent Appeal dismissed in limine. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)