WP.4714-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 4714 OF 2010 The Vithalnagar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. ...Petitioner Vs. Mrs. Ranjan Gul Jhurani & Ors. ...Respondents *** Mr. Karl Shroff with V. P. Amin i/b B. Amin & Co., for the Petitioner. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, in person. Mr. S. A. Oak i/b Mahesh Menon & Co. for Respondent Nos. 6 and 8. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : JANUARY 11, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, respondent Nos. 6 & 8 and respondent Nos. 1 to 4, appearing in person. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, passed in Revision Application No. 33 of 2009, more particularly the Clause (3) of the operative part of the order. 2. Brief facts are that the Dispute was filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 against the petitioner and respondent No. 6. At the relevant time, an Administrator was appointed by the Assistant Registrar. He had filed WP.4714-10 - 2 - an affidavit-cum-written statement. Thereafter the Administrator was removed and a new Managing Committee was duly elected and they took charge of the Society. They filed an application in the trial Court seeking permission to substitute the earlier written-statement which was filed by the Administrator. The said application, however, was rejected by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said order, the revision application was filed by the Society. This revision was allowed and the Society was permitted to submit their written-statement on record. However, in the operative part of the order, the learned lower Appellate Court observed that the Society is permitted to submit the written- statement to the Dispute, subject to the condition that no contrary plea is taken regarding specific averments made in, on affidavit. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that such a condition should not have been imposed by the Appellate Court, since the said is aspect would only be considered by the trial Court at the time of final hearing of the Dispute. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 appearing in person have submitted that they have no objection if the said condition is removed. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 & 7, however, vehemently opposed the submission made by the petitioner. He submitted that such a course of action should not have been undertaken by the petitioner. He drew my attention to the impugned WP.4714-10 - 3 - order and also affidavit-cum-written statement, filed by the Administrator. 4. In my view, there is some substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. As far as the condition which is imposed by the lower Appellate Court is concerned, the lower Appellate Court should not have, at this stage, imposed such a condition, since the trial Court is empowered to decide the said aspect at the hearing of the Dispute. It is an admitted position that respondent Nos. 6 & 7 have not challenged this order, passed by the Maharashtra State Appellate Court and, therefore, at this stage they cannot challenge the order, granting the permission to the petitioner to file written-statement. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The condition which is found in Clause (3) in the operative part of the impugned order of the lower Appellate Order, is, therefore, set aside. Rest of the order of the lower Appellate Court is confirmed by this Court. However, it shall be open for the trial Court to consider the objections raised by respondent Nos. 6 & 7 and the submissions made by the petitioner herein, on this aspect, at the time of final hearing of the Dispute. With these directions, writ petition is disposed of. [ V. M. KANADE J.]