((-1-)) ms t IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.329 OF 2000 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5107 OF 1999 Narayan Kalyan Ugar Appellant versus Mukund Kalyan Ugar & others Respondents Shri Narayan K. Ugar, appellant in person Shri A.G.Damle for respondents. CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI AND SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATE : 16th June 2008 ORAL JUDGEMENT - (PER: SMT.RANJANA DESAI,J.):- 1. The appellant and the first and second respondents are brothers. Respondent nos.1 and 2 filed Writ Petition No.5107 of 1999 in this Court against the appellant and third respondent Lokmanya Nagar Sahakari Grahakaran Sanstha Maryadit (hereinafter referred to as "the Society" for short) challenging the order dated 14th June 1999 passed by the Secretary (Co-operation), State of Maharashtra. By the impugned order dated 3rd August 2000 learned Single Judge of this Court (R.M.Lodha, J.) ((-2-)) disposed of the said writ petition. The said order is challenged in this letters patent appeal. 2. It is necessary to begin with the gist of the facts. The dispute relates to a flat admesuring 1,100 sq.ft. situate in the said society in building on Plot No.31 at Nirmal Baug, Pune ("the said flat" for convenience). Respondents 1 and 2 claimed to be the transferees of shares in respect of the said flat at the request of their father and the appellant claims right in the said flat on the basis of nomination said to have been made by his father in his favour. The parties are embroiled in several legal proceedings. It is not necessary to refer to those proceedings at this stage. We shall only refer to the germane facts, dates and events. 3. On 23rd March 1994 the appellant made application to the said society claiming right in the said flat on the basis of his nomination. The application was made under section 23 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act" for short). The said society ((-3-)) refused to admit the appellant on the ground that litigation in respect of said flat is pending. The appellant preferred an appeal under section 23(2) of the said Act to the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies. In that appeal he did not implead the first and second respondents as party respondents, though the said society was impleaded. The Deputy Registrar by his order dated 24th May 1995 allowed the said appeal. He set aside the order of the said society and directed the said society to induct the appellant as a member. The said society preferred revision application under section 154 of the said Act. It was heard by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Appeal), Pune. The Divisional Joint Registrar by his order dated 24th November 1995 allowed the revision application and set aside the order of the Deputy Registrar dated 25th May 1995. He held that respondent nos.1 and 2 are necessary parties. He also held that the rights of the parties are subject matter of several proceedings and hence membership could not have been granted to the appellant. 4. The appellant preferred revision ((-4-)) application under section 154 of the said Act to the Secretary (Co-operation), State of Maharashtra without impleading the first and second respondents as parties. The Secretary (Co-operation) by his order dated 14th June 1999 allowed the application of the appellant; set aside the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar dated 24th November 1995 and restored the order of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies dated 24th April 1995 directing the said society to induct the appellant as member of the said society. 5. As stated earlier, the said order was challenged by the first and second respondents in Writ Petition No.5107 of 1999 and by the impugned order dated 3rd August 2000, learned Single Judge disposed of the said writ petition. Hence this appeal. 6. We have heard at some length Professor Narayan Kalyan Ugar-the appellant, in person and Shri Damle appearing for respondents 1 and 2. The society is not represented before us. We have carefully perused the impugned order. Learned Single Judge has while disposing of the writ petition, held that the second revision ((-5-)) under section 154 of the said Act was not maintainable. Our attention was drawn by Mr.Damle to the judgement of Supreme Court in Ishwar Ishwar Ishwar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and others Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and others Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and others (2005)2-SCC-334 (2005)2-SCC-334 (2005)2-SCC-334 in which, while considering the provisions of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, the Supreme Court has held that a second revision is maintainable. We have carefully perused the provisions of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act. In our opinion, the provisions of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act are not in pari materia with the provisions of the said Act. Therefore, it is not possible for us to hold merely relying on Ishwar Singh’s judgement Ishwar Singh’s judgement Ishwar Singh’s judgement (supra) (supra) (supra) that the view taken by learned Single Judge is wrong. An indepth examination of provisions of the said Act will have to be done. We are informed that the Division Bench headed by Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase has also by judgement and order dated 13th July 2003 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.55 of 2005 taken a view that in matters arising out of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (MLRC) a second revision is tenable. It would be necessary also to see whether the relevant provisions of M.L.R.C. are in pari materia with the relevant ((-6-)) provisions of the said Act. But in this case it is not necessary to go into this vexed question of law because we find that learned Single Judge has held that respondents 1 and 2 who are the brothers of the appellant, ought to have been impleaded in the proceedings before the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Appeal). We concur with learned Single Judge on this issue. In our opinion, the brothers were necessary parties and ought to have been impleaded. Learned Judge has, in our opinion, rightly expressed that rights of the parties are subjudice and therefore it cannot be said that the 1st and 2nd respondents have no concern or they lack locus. 7. We have noticed that learned Single Judge has in paragraph 8 of his judgement, while setting aside the order of Secretary (Co-operation) dated 14th June 1999 stated that it would be open to the 1st respondent to challenge the order passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies on 24th November 1995 in competent proceedings by impleading the present respondents in accordance with law. In the interest of justice, therefore, we modify the order of ((-7-)) learned Single Judge. We are of the opinion that respondents 1 and 2 were necessary parties since inception. Therefore, in our opinion, they should be impleaded in the appeal which was filed before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. 8. In the circumstances of the case in our view following order passed without expressing any opinion on the merits will meet the ends of justice. 9. ORDER :- (a) Setting aside of order dated 14th June 1999 passed by the Secretary (Co-operation) vide the impugned order is confirmed; (b) We set aside the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies dated 24th May 1995 and by the Divisional Joint Registrar dated 24th November 1995; (c) The appellant shall implead respondents 1 and 2 in his appeal preferred under section 23(2) of the said Act being Appeal No.4 of 1994 filed before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative ((-8-)) Societies within two weeks from the date on which he gets copy of this order; (d) The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies shall hear and dispose of the said appeal afresh in accordance with law after hearing the appellant, the first and second respondents and the said society; (e) The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies shall pass his order independently without being influenced by any subsequent orders and even uninfluenced by order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court. We expect the Deputy Registrar to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible considering the advanced age of the parties; (f) Letters patent appeal disposed of in the above terms. JUDGE JUDGE ((-9-)) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.329 OF 2000 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5107 OF 1999 DATE OF THE JUDGEMENT : 16th JUNE 2008 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :- THE THE THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE RANJANA DESAI HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE RANJANA DESAI HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE RANJANA DESAI THE THE THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE R.P.SONDURBALDOTA HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE R.P.SONDURBALDOTA HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE R.P.SONDURBALDOTA 1. Whether Reporters of Local ) newspapers may be allowed to ) see the judgement ? ) ) 2. To be referred to the Reporters ) or not ? ) ) 3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish ) to see the fair copy of the ) judgement ? ) ) 4. Whether this case involves a ) substantial question of law as to ) the interpretation of the ) Constitution of India, 1950 or ) any order made thereunder ? ) ) 5. Whether it is to be circulated ) to the Civil Judges ? ) ) 6. Whether the case involves an ) important question of law and ) whether a copy of the judgement ) should be sent to Nagpur, ) Aurangabad and Goa offices ? )